LOVE STYLES AMONG UNIVERSITY STUDENTS IN THE NEW MILLENIUM

Helvinder Balbir Singh 1, Drs. Zulkernain bin Hashim 2, Muhammad Iqbal Samadi 3
1
Senior Lecturer / Counselor, UniKL Royal College of Medicine Perak
2
Lecturer ,UniKL Royal College Of Medicine Perak
3
Counselor, UniKL Royal College Of Medicine Perak

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study is to identify the trend of love styles (romantic-eros, game-ludus,

friendship-storge, logical-pragma, belonging-mania, and sacrifice-agape) among students in

UniKL RCMP according to their streams. A survey was conducted to observe the love styles

among the undergraduates students from University Kuala Lumpur Royal College Of Medicine

Perak (UniKL RCMP) in Ipoh, Perak. This survey involved 120 undergraduates from UniKL

RCMP. The instrument used in this study was a set of Inventory (contained of 60 items) called

The Liking and Loving Scale by Rosenman which had been translated and innovated by Dr.

Sidek Mohd Noah (1998). Analyses and outcomes were presented in this studies. The result from

the study have shown that there is a strong endorsement for romantic-eros love style profile and a

poor endorsement was found for a game game-ludus love style.

Key Words: Love Styles, Students

1
INTRODUCTION

Recently, there has been a major resurgence of interest in the topic of love. For many of us, love

is like an oxygen. We can't live without it. Expression of words like ‘love is blind’ is often heard

but we seldom express such words of love to our loved ones. Surely, we as human beings have

never get rid from experiencing feeling of love. The feeling of love has been given to us by GOD

so that we are able to enjoy and same time give love to others and feel it as well.

Researchers have long examined the concept of love. The media and arts have presented many

examples of lovers who exhibit different styles of love; e.g., Romeo and Juliet. Love is an

important predictor of happiness, satisfaction, and positive emotions in our lives (Anderson,

1977; Diener & Lucas, 2000; Myers, 1992). Over the years, there are have been many different

conceptualizations of love.

According to Mohd. Makzan Moses (1997), romance and love is the most ideal attraction

between people. Love affection and intimacy can provide endless fun in humans. Romance and

love are found to be difficult and complex to be practical, particularly in the studies of

experimental. This is because love cannot be manipulated in the laboratory.

Robert Sternberg (1986) in J. Grace Craig (1999) uses the "Triangular Theory of Love” to

describe love in a complex relationship. According to him, love must go through three

components that is intimacy or closeness, feeling of passion or infatuation, and the third

component is commitment.

Therefore, style of romantic relationship may be measured by using an inventory called The

Liking And Loving Scale. It is by observation and sensitivity made by individuals against

2
individuals who are in love. Generally there are six types of love and the ways it is the love of

friendship, romantic love, game love, logical love, belonging and sacrifice love. Therefore, it

will be interesting to find out the new trend of love styles among students in UniKL RCMP

according to their streams.

Explicating Love Styles

Love has also received considerable attention from both the research community (e.g., Hendrick

& Hendrick, 1992a, 1992b; Sternberg and Barnes, 1988) and the popular press (e.g., Buscaglia,

1972). Lee (1973, 1988) described six love styles; three primary (eros, ludus, and storge) and

three secondary (pragma, agape, and mania). Each of Lee’s love style will be discussed below.

Friendship Love (Storge): Storgic love develops from a strong sense of friendship with the

partner. If eros is characterized by love at first sight, storge is love as ‘evolution.’ Storgic love is

characterized by deep caring and respect for the partners.

Romantic / Passionate Love (Eros): Eros is full of passion and sexuality. Erotic lovers are

attracted to the physical characteristics of real or potential partners. They know what physical

characteristics they want their partner to possess and know a potential love partner when they see

one or more. Erotic lovers believe in and experience love at first sight. As such, Lee (1988)

notes that in eros, love is very much not blind. Eros regularly begins with an intense physical

attraction toward one’s partner; the cornerstone to erotic love.

Game / Playful Love (Ludus): Ludic lovers see love as a game is to be played cunningly for all

that it is worth. Ludic lovers see love as exciting and will remain in a relationship (or multiple

simultaneous relationship) only as long as the ‘game’ remains fun. Commitment is not the ludic

3
lovers’ strong suit. For the ludic lover, sex is an enjoyable, but purely physical part of a

relationship.

Logical Love (Pragma): A combination of ludus and storge, the pragmatic lover represents a

cognitive (as opposed to an emotional lover). The pragmatic lover has a number of

characteristics that they are looking for in a romantic partner and systematically searches for a

partner possessing those characteristics. Pragmatic love is the outcome of meeting another

person with the requisite characteristics.

Sacrifice / Selfless / All-Giving Love (Agape): A combination of eros and storge, agape is

unconditional. The agapic lover is altruistic, willing to give up everything for their lover. Where

ludic lovers anter a love relationship for what it can do for themselves, the agapic lover enters

into a relationship considering how it can help the partner.

Belong / Dependent/ Obsessive Love (Mania): A combination of eros and ludus, mania

represents a contradiction in love. On the other hand, mania represents an obsessive

preoccupation with one’s partner, is ‘intensely jealous and possessive, and in need of repeated

assurance of being loved’ (Lee, 1988, p.43). On the other hand, the manic lover holds back from

total loving of the partner out of an irrational fear of being abandoned.

OBJECTIVE

The main reason of this research is to:

a. identify the trend of love styles according to students streams

4
METHODOLOGY

Participants

Participants were 120 university students enrolled in different undergraduates programs at

UNIKL RCMP. The sample was comprised of 50 males and 70 females students ranging in the

age from 18-24 years old. The age group, gender, religion, streams and education level

distribution of the sample was representative of the university population.

Instruments

The instrument used in this study was a set of inventory from The Liking And Loving Scale

which has been translated and innovated by Dr. Sidek Mohd. Noah (1998), to examine the six

love types of individual. IGB consist of 60 items with a five point Likert Scale according to the

level of strongly disagree to strongly agree with the statement in the item (1=Strongly Disagree;

5= Strongly Agree). Six items in the scale represents each of six major love styles named as Eros

Ludus, Storge, Pragma, Mania, and Agape. High scores obtained from each subscale indicate the

love style of that individual.

Procedure

The data collection procedure was conducted in classrooms on a voluntary basis after a brief

description of the purpose of the study. Details about the completion of measures and importance

of providing sincere answers were explained.

5
Data Analysis

Percentage of analysis with graphs was chosen to resembled the analysis.

RESULT

Demographic profile of the students were shown as below respectively.

AGE GROUP
Column1

41

33
29

17

NURSING PHARMACY PHYSIOTHERAPY RADIO

FIGURE 1: Distribution Of Students According To Age Group

AGE NURSING PHARMACY PHYSIOTERAPH RADIOGRAPHY

STUDENTS STUDENTS Y STUDENTS STUDENTS
18-24 AGE 41 29 33 17

TABLE 1: Distribution Of Students According To Age Group

6
 GENDER
FEMALE Series 3

34

18
12
18
8 12

6 12

NURSING
PHARMACY
PHYSIOTHERAPY
RADIOGRAPHY

FIGURE 2: Distribution Of Students According To Gender

GENDER NURSING PHARMACY PHYSIOTHERAPY RADIOGRAPHY

STUDENTS STUDENTS STUDENTS STUDENTS
FEMALE 34 18 6 12
MALE 12 18 8 12

TABLE 2: Distribution Of Students According To Gender

7
 RELIGION
NURSING PHARMACY PHYSIOTHERAPY RADIOGRAPHY

35

25

15
10

2 2 1 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2
0 0 0 0 0
ISLAM BUDDHA KRISTIAN HINDU SIKH LAIN-LAIN

FIGURE 3: Distribution Of Students According To Religion

RELIGION NURSING PHARMACY PHYSIOTHERAPY RADIOGRAPHY

ISLAM 25 35 10 15
BUDDHA 2 2 1 3
KRISTIAN 2 3 2 2
HINDU 2 2 3 3
SIKH 2 2 2 2
LAIN-LAIN 0 0 0 0

TABLE 3: Distribution Of Students According To Religion

8
 STREAMS
NURSING PHARMACY PHYSIOTHERAPY Column2

45

35

20 20

PHARMACY RADIOGRAPHY PHYSIOTHERAPY NURSING

FIGURE 4: Distribution Of Students According To Streams

STREAMING NURSING PHARMACY PSYSIOTHERAPY RADIOGRAPHY

PHARMACY 45
RADIOGRAPHY 20
PHYSIOTHERAPY 20
NURSING 35

TABLE 4: Distribution Of Students According To Streams

9
 EDUCATION LEVEL
NURSING PHARMACY PHYSIOTHERAPY RADIOGRAPHY
41

27
25

17

2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1

SPM STPM DIPLOMA MATRICULATION

FIGURE 5: Distribution Of Students According To Education Level

EDUCATION NURSING PHARMACY PHYSIOTHERAPY RADIOGRAPHY

LEVEL
SPM 41 27 25 17
STPM 2 1
DIPLOMA 2 1 1 1
MATRICULATION 1 1

TABLE 5: Distribution Of Students According To Education Level

10
 LOVE STYLES AMONG NURSING STUDENTS
Nursing Series 3
42
35

20 18
16 15 15 15
10 12 12
8

FRIENDSHIP ROMANTIC GAME LOGICAL SACRIFICE BELONGING

FIGURE 6: Distribution Of Nursing Students Love Styles

LOVE STYLES NURSING %

FRIENDSHIP (STORAGE) 20 16
ROMANTIC (EROS) 42 35
GAME (LUDUS) 10 8
LOGICAL (PRAGMA) 18 15
SACRIFICE (AGAPE) 15 13
BELONGING (MANIA) 15 13
TOTAL 120 100

TABLE 6: Distribution Of Nursing Students Love Styles

Table 6 shows love styles among Nursing students. The results from the studies shows that there

is a strong endorsement for a romantic love style profile that is 35% and a poor endorsement was

found for a game love style profile that is only 8%.

11
 LOVE STYLES AMONG
PHYSIOTHERAPY STUDENTS
Physiotherapy Series 2

35
32
29.1
26.6

19
15.8 15.8
13
11 10 10.8
9.1

FRIENDSHIP ROMANTIC GAME LOGICAL SACRIFICE BELONGING

FIGURE 7: Distribution Of Physiotherapy Students Love Styles

LOVE STYLES PHYSIOTHERAPY %

FRIENDSHIP (STORAGE) 11 9.1
ROMANTIC (EROS) 35 29.1
GAME (LUDUS) 10 8.3
LOGICAL (PRAGMA) 13 10.8
SACRIFICE (AGAPE) 32 26.6
BELONGING (MANIA) 19 15.8
TOTAL 120 100

TABLE 7: Distribution Of Physiotherapy Students Love Styles

Table 7 shows love styles among Physiotherapy students. The results from the studies shows that

there is a strong endorsement for a romantic love style profile that is 29.1% and a poor

endorsement was found for a game love style profile that is only 8.3%.

12
 LOVE STYLES AMONG PHARMACY STUDENTS
PHARMACY %

40

33.3

22
18.3 18
15 16 15
12.5 13.3
9
7.5

FRIENDSHIP ROMANTIC GAME LOGICAL SACRIFICE BELONGING

FIGURE 8: Distribution Of Pharmacy Students Love Styles

LOVE STYLES PHARMACY %

FRIENDSHIP (STORAGE) 40 33.3
ROMANTIC (EROS) 15 12.5
GAME (LUDUS) 9 7.5
LOGICAL ( PRAGMA) 16 13.33
SACRIFICE (AGAPE) 22 18.33
BELONGING (MANIA) 18 15
TOTAL 120 100

TABLE 8: Distribution Of Pharmacy Students Love Styles

Table 8 shows love styles among Pharmacy students. The results from the studies shows that

there is a strong endorsement for a friendship love style profile that is 33.3% and a poor

endorsement was found for a game love style profile that is only 7.5%.

13
 LOVE STYLES AMONG
RADIOGRAPHY STUDENTS
Radiography

43

35.8

24
20
18
15 15
12.5 12
10
8 6.6

FRIENDSIP ROMANTIC GAME LOGICAL SACRIFICE BELONGING

FIGURE 9: Distribution Of Radiography Students Love Styles

LOVE STYLES RADIOGRAPHY %

FRIENDSIP (STORAGE) 15 12.5
ROMANTIC (EROS) 18 15
PERMAINAN (GAME) 43 35.8
LOGICAL (PRAGMA) 24 20
SACRIFICE (AGAPE) 8 6.6
BELONGING (MANIA) 12 10
TOTAL 120 100

TABLE 9: Distribution Of Radiography Students Love Styles

Table 9 shows love styles among Radiography students. The results from the studies shows that

there is a strong endorsement for a game love style profile that is 35.8% and a poor endorsement

was found for a sacrifice love style profile that is only 6.6%.

14
 LOVE STYLES NURSIN % PHYSIOTEHRA % PHARMACY % RADIOGRAP %
G PY HY
FRIENDSHIP 20 16 11 9.1 40 33.3 15 12.5
(STORAGE)

ROMANTIC 42 35 35 29.1 15 12.5 18 15

(EROS)

GAME 10 8 10 8.3 9 7.5 43 35.8

(LUDUS)

LOGICAL 18 15 13 10.8 16 13.33 24 20

(PRAGMA)

SACRIFICE 15 13 32 26.6 22 18.33 8 6.6

(AGAPE)

BELONGING 15 13 19 15.8 18 15 12 10
(MANIA)

TOTAL 120 120 120 120

TABLE 10: Summary Of Love Styles According To Streams

In general, the results of these studies reveal that love styles experience vary as for streams are

concern. It is important to keep in mind that not all individuals possess one approach or styles of

loving. A man or women may adopt numerous love styles, and a person’s love style may change

over his or her lifetime or during the course of a given relationship. As for this research is

concern, a strong endorsement was found for a romantic love style profile and a poor

endorsement was found for a game love style profile.

DISCUSSION

(i) Strong Endorsement For Friendship (Storge) Love Style Among Pharmacy Students

Friendship includes characteristics most people desire in their spouses and lovers too and

includes enjoyment of each other’s company most times, acceptance of one another, mutual trust

that you hold each other’s best interest, mutual assistance in times of need, ability to confide in

15
one another, understanding each other’s behavior and spontaneity; freedom to be yourself (King,

Human Sexuality Today, 5/e@2005 by Prentice Hall).

Among college students, the most desired love styles are storge and agape, and the least desired

love style is ludus (Hahn & Blass, 1997). Furthermore, most individuals prefer, and are happier

with, a partner with the same love style(s) as themselves (Davis & Latty-Mann, 1987; Hahn &

Blass, 1997). Similar love styles is an important predictor of satisfying, long-term relationships.

Ethno-cultural background and gender were investigated as correlates of love styles in an

ethnically diverse sample of university students in Toronto. Women viewed love as more

friendship oriented, more pragmatic, but less permissive than did men, findings consistent with

previous research with American college students. Ethno-cultural differences or Gender x Ethno-

cultural Background interactions were also found. In line with an expected contrast between

Asian and Western cultural traditions regarding love, Chinese and other Asian respondents of

both sexes were more friendship oriented in their love relationships than were respondents of

Anglo-Celtic or European ethno-cultural backgrounds (Kenneth L. Dion, Karen K. Dion, 2006).

(ii) Strong Endorsement For Romantic (Eros) Love Style Among Nursing And Physiotherapy

Students

Romantic love has strong components of sexuality and infatuation, and it often predominates in

the early part of a love relationship (Hendrick & Hendrick, 2004; Metts, 2004). Romantic love is

especially important among college students. One study of unattached college men and women

found that more than half identified a romantic partner, rather than a parent, sibling or friend, as

their closest relationship (Berscheid & others, 1989).

16
According to Santrock (1999), romantic love is very important among students whilst according

to Erikson (in Papalia, 2000) to form an intimate relationship is one of the development tasks

that must be met by a student who is at the beginning of adult development.

Jankowiak and Fischer (1992) conducted a study of romantic love cross-culturally and found that

89% of the 166 societies they studied had evidence of passionate love (love songs in the culture,

delopement due to mutual affection, etc.). Hatfield and Rapson (1996) in their overview of love

in different cultures concluded, "People throughout the modern world seem to be equally

susceptible to love and to experience it with the same fervor" (p. 88).

In regard to romantic love in the U.S., researchers (Knox and Sporakowski, 1968; Knox, 1970a)

found that the younger the respondent the more likely the belief in romantic ideas about love

such as "love at first sight" and "love conquers all." Data from the current study show that after

almost thirty years, youth and romanticism are still related. Thus, despite a high divorce rate,

premarital education programs, and public awareness of violence in relationships, first and

second year college students still believe very much in the mystery of love (it happens on sight

and conquers all problems). Montgomery and Sorell (1997) found that relationships

characterized by romance and passion are likely to be among the most satisfying.

In a classic book titled Colors of Love (1973), J. A. Lee defined six varieties of relationship that

might be labeled love. In his studies of couples happily married for over 30 years showed that

couples who rated their marriages as highly satisfactory described their relationship in terms

which resembled erotic love more than the other five types. This might be surprising; in view of

the earlier-mentioned finding that limerence type relationships tend to flare out quickly among

college students. However, it might be the case that long-term relationships that contain both

17
friendship and a passionate spark are more likely to endure and provide satisfaction to both

parties than relationships that are low-key and pragmatic.

Scott R. Braithwaite conducted a study on Romantic Relationship And The Physical And Mental

Health Of College Students found that his studies tested the hypothesis that, analogous to

married individuals, college students in committed romantic relationships experience greater

well-being than single college students. In a sample of 1,621 college students, individuals in

committed relationships experienced fewer mental health problems and were less likely to be

overweight/obese. There were no significant differences between groups in frequency of physical

health problems. Examination of 2 models suggested that being in a committed romantic

relationship decreases problematic outcomes largely through a reduction in sexual partners,

which in turn decreases both risky behaviors and problematic outcomes. These results are

discussed in the context of how premarital dating relationships may contribute to understanding

of the observed association between marriage and well-being. (Scott R. Braithwaite, Raquel

Delevi, Frank D. Fincham, 2010).

In the majority of Western cultures, most people involved in long-term romantic relationships

consider their partners to be their best friends and the persons they would most likely turn to for

support in times of need (Pasch et al., 1997). Receiving social support has important benefits,

including a decrease in stress and an increase in physical health and happiness, while

simultaneously increasing satisfaction and commitment to the relationship (Coyne et al., 2001;

Dehle et al., 2001).

18
(iii) Poor Endorsement For Sacrifice (Agape) Love Style Among Radiography Students

Agape type of love was least familiar to students. In a classic book titled Colors of Love (1973),

J. A. Lee defined six varieties of relationship that might be labeled love. He reported in a

classroom poll, conducted in two American introductory psychology classes of over 250 students

each, the first five types were all familiar to over 80% of the students from their personal

experience (their own relationships or people they knew). However, less than 10% of students

knew somebody who expressed agape.

(iv) Poor Endorsement For Game (Ludus) Love Style Among Physiotherapy, Nursing And

Pharmacy Students

The Effect Of A Ludus Love Style On Sexual Experience research by Hensley, Wayne E. (in

Social Behavior And Personality: An International Journal, Vol 24, Number 3, 1996, pp. 205-

212 (8) examined the effects of a game-playing love style - ludus - (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1991)

with sexual experience. In a sample of American college students (N=305) the study found that

sexual experience was related to the ludus (game-playing) subscale. As the tendency to endorse

items of the ludus scale increases, the individual reported an ever larger number of sexual

partners. Neither the gender of the respondent nor the effect of being in a deepening

interpersonal relationship mollifies the tendency to endorse the ludic items (Hensley, Wayne E.,

1996).

19
CONCLUSION

In summary, it can be concluded love is fundamentally important to our humanity. Various

expressions of love are important, including romantic, partnered love. Generally there are six

styles of love and the ways it is the love of friendship, love, romance, love games, love logical,

love, belonging and love sacrifice. While the world changed, but love does exist and bloom.

Love may be the same style but the techniques and how to change. Advances in information

technology has enriched techniques such as electronic love or e-mail and so on.

The result from this study have shown that the students have a strong endorsement in romantic

(eros) love style profile and a poor endorsement was found in game (ludus) love style profile

characterized by students.

Some different limitations of this study were that the research was only conducted among college

students, within a limited age group.  Research related to this study could be expanded through

various measures.  Subjects in different age groups could also be included in the study.  Different

types of marital status and ethnic groups could also be examined.  The subjects might be tested

verbally or through observation, instead of through questionnaires.  By applying different

techniques to this area of study, different observations could be examined.

20
REFERENCE

Anderson, M. R. (1977). A study of the relationship between life satisfaction and self-control,

locus of control, satisfaction with primary relationships, and work satisfaction (Doctoral

dissertation, Michigan State University, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts International, 38,

26389A, (University Microfilm No. 77-25, 214).

Berscheid, E., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M.(1989). Issues in studying close relationships:

Conceptualizing and measuring closeness. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Close relationships.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Coyne, J. C., Rohrbaugh, M.J., Shoham, V., Sonnega, J. S., Nicklas, J. M., & Cranford, J.A.

(2001). Prognostic importance of marital quality for survival of congestive heart failure.

American Journal Of Cardiology, 88, 526-529.

Dehle, C., Larsen, D., Landers, J. E. (2001). Social Support in marriage. Special Issue: American

Journal Of Family Therapy, 29, 307-324.

Diener, E., & Lucas, R. (2000). Subjective emotional well-being. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland-

Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.

Grace. J. Craig (1999). Human Development. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Inc.

Hahn, J., & Blass, T. (1997). Dating partner preferences: A function of similarity of love styles.

Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 595-610.

21
Hatfield, E. and R. L. Rapson (1996) Love and sex: Cross-cultural perspectives. Boston: Allyn

and Bacon.

Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S.S. (2004). Sex and romantic love. In J.H. Harvey, A Wentzel, & S.

Sprecher (Eds.), The handbook of sexuality in close relationships. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hensley, Wayne E. (1996). Social Behavior And Personality: An International Journal, Vol 24,

Number 3, pp. 205-212(8).

Jankowiak, W. R. and E. F. Fischer. (1992). A cross-cultural perspective on romantic love.

Ethnology 31, 149-155.

Kenneth L.Dion, Karen K. Dion (2006). Gender And Ethnocultural Comparisons In Styles Of

Love. Psychology Of Women Quartley.

Knox, D and M. J. Sporakowski (1968) Attitudes of college students toward love. Journal of

Marriage and the Family 30, 638-642.

Lee, J. A. (1973). The colors of love: An exploration of the ways of loving. Don Mills, Ontario:

New Press. (Popular Edition, 1976).

Mohd Makzan Musa (1997). Psikologi Sosial. Kuala Lumpur: Utusan Publications &

Distributors Sdn. Bhd.

Montgomery, M. J. and G. T. Sorell. (1997) Differences in love attitudes across family life

states. Family Relations 46, 55-61.

22
Papalia, D.E., Olds, S.W., Feldman, R.D. (2000). Human Development. Eight Edition. New

York. McGraw Hill Companies.

Pasch, L.A., Bradbury, T.N., & Sullivan, K.T. (1997). Social support in marriage: An analysis of

intra-individual and interpersonal components. In G.R. Pierce, B. Lakey, I.G. Sarason, &

B.R. Sarason (Eds.) Sourcebook of social support and personality (pp.229-256). New

York: Plenum.

Santrock, J.W. (1999). Life Span Development. Seventh Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill

Companies.

Scott R. Braithwalte, Raquel Delevi, Frank D. Fincham (2010). Romantic Relationships And The

Physical And Mental Health Of College Students, Vol 17, Issue 1, pg 1-12

Sternberg, R.J. (1986). Triangular Theory Of Love. Psychological Review, 93, 119-135.

23
24