1

THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

The Lovebird Scale: A New Measure of Relationship Quality in Long-Lasting, Flourishing

Relationships

Sara A. Cloonan1, Lara Ault2, Karen L. Weihs3, and Richard D. Lane3

1
College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ
2
Department of Social Sciences, Saint Leo University, Saint Leo, FL
3
Department of Psychiatry, College of Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

Author Note

Sara A. Cloonan https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8221-7737

Lara Ault https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2062-9140

Karen L. Weihs https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5985-8560

Richard D. Lane https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4074-1407

We have no known conflicts of interest to disclose. All data and analysis code have been

made publicly available at the “APA Journal Articles: Data and Related Resources” Open

Science Framework repository and can be accessed at https://osf.io/3p69f/. This study’s design

and its analysis were not pre-registered. A pre-print of this manuscript can be accessed at

https://psyarxiv.com/zavkf.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sara A. Cloonan,

College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ 85004, United States. Email:

sacloona@asu.edu
2
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

Abstract

People often use the term “lovebirds” to describe the ongoing loving behaviors and interactions

between two romantic partners, but what specific relationship processes distinguish flourishing

“lovebird” relationships from other adult committed long-term relationships? The present study

aimed to address this knowledge gap through the development and validation of a new measure

called the Lovebird Scale. To do this, we conducted three studies using data collected from 996

English-speaking, U.S. adults who reported being in a romantic relationship lasting at least 6

months (M = 11.2 years). In Study 1, we generated an item pool and conducted an exploratory

factor analysis to determine the best performing items to retain. In Study 2, confirmatory factor

analyses revealed a three-factor model (Mutuality, Romance, and Disconnect) nested within a

higher-order factor representing overall lovebird relationships. In Study 3, we cross-validated the

higher order structure and these data provide preliminary evidence for the convergent,

discriminant, and incremental validity properties of the Lovebird Scale. We also explored the

relation between the Lovebird Scale and affective state, finding that lovebird relationships were

associated with greater positive affect. We discuss how the Lovebird Scale relates to previous

research on relationship functioning and how it can be used to further our understanding of

relationship flourishing.

Keywords: romantic relationships, relationship quality, flourishing, mutuality, romance

Statement of Relevance

Existing measures tend to use the presence or absence of relationship dysfunction as a

barometer for relationship quality, but this does not necessarily indicate relationship flourishing.

The Lovebird Scale aims to address this knowledge gap by measuring the various loving

behaviors, interactions, and cognitions that occur within exceptionally high-quality relationships.

The scale advances the science of love by operationalizing “optimal” romantic relationships,

going beyond broad ratings of relationship satisfaction to distinguish between “lovebirds” and

other types of adult committed relationships.

3
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

The Lovebird Scale: A New Measure of Relationship Quality in Long-Lasting, Flourishing

Relationships

Romantic relationships are considered one of the most important types of adult

relationships, given their significant influence on both physical and mental health outcomes. For

example, being in a committed relationship (e.g., marriage, cohabitating) is linked to higher

levels of subjective well-being (Dush & Amato, 2005), fewer depressive symptoms (Holt-

Lunstad et al., 2008), engaging in fewer risky behaviors (e.g., binge drinking, substance use)

(Braithwaite et al., 2010), and lower morbidity and mortality (Robles et al., 2014). However, just

being in a long-term committed relationship does not guarantee these benefits; rather, they are

largely dependent on the quality of the relationship. In their study, Holt-Lunstad et al. (2008)

found that higher marital quality was linked to lower ambulatory blood pressure and stress, as

well as less depression and higher subjective well-being. Critically, single individuals in their

study had lower blood pressure than those in unhappy marriages, a finding that highlights the

importance of relationship quality for achieving the health benefits associated with committed

relationships (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2008). Another study by Roberson et al. (2018) found that

people in stable marriages with high conflict reported lower life satisfaction and higher frequency

of depressive symptoms over a 30-year period than those who were married and eventually

divorced. Building and maintaining high relationship quality over time appears to be key for

attaining the many benefits of being in a long-term committed relationship.

A central feature of existing research on romantic relationships is the emphasis on the

presence (or absence) of negative processes that diminish relationship quality, such as conflict

and dysfunction (Fincham & Beach, 2010). Fincham and Beach (2010) outline the various

reasons for this focus, one of the main reasons being that negative processes tend to have a

larger impact than positive ones. For instance, the seminal study by Gottman (1994) found it

takes five positive behaviors to counterbalance the impact of one negative behavior on

participants’ moods during relationship conflict. Additionally, Braithwaite and Holt-Lunstad

4
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

(2017) observed that the relative effect of negative relationship processes is much stronger than

positive processes, a finding that has been consistently reported in both the relationship and

broader psychology literature. While understanding the consequences of negative relationship

processes has helped illustrate the importance of romantic relationships, this paints an

incomplete picture of relationship functioning. Instead, Fincham and Beach (2010, p. 7) argue

that “relationship health is not merely the absence of relationship dysfunction, just as the

absence of a physical illness is not sufficient to define physical health;” rather, the absence of

relationship dysfunction may be more indicative of an indifferent or “numbed” relationship that is

“relatively free of pain but is also relatively free of the positive benefits of relationships”. While

these “numbed” relationships may be long-lasting, it is possible that partners’ commitment is

motivated primarily by a desire to avoid relationship dissolution (i.e., avoidance commitment)

instead of a desire to maintain the relationship (i.e., approach commitment) (Strachman &

Gable, 2006). Differentiating between indifferent relationships and those that are well-

functioning is key to understanding how to facilitate optimal relationship functioning rather than

preventing relationship suffering.

To address these issues, recent work in the field of relationship science has emphasized

the construct of relationship flourishing. At the individual level, flourishing is characterized by

high levels of positive emotion and psychosocial functioning (Keyes, 2002); similarly,

relationship flourishing aims to capture the positive relationship processes that contribute to “a

sense that their life as a couple is a life well lived” (Fincham & Beach, 2010, p. 7). These

processes can include, but are not limited to, emotional connection, partner support,

forgiveness, acceptance, trust, respect, positive affect, satisfaction, commitment, and love

(Fincham & Beach, 2010). Over the past decade, scholars have developed several models to

further our understanding of relationship flourishing. For example, the Strong Relationality

Model of Relationship Flourishing (SRM) is centered on the idea that “Ethical Responsiveness”

(i.e., viewing one’s partner as an “Other” versus an object) motivates partners to engage in pro-
5
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

relationship behaviors called “Responsible Actions” (e.g., gratitude, support, affection), which

then facilitates other forms of “Relational-Connectivity” (e.g., intimacy, belonging, friendship)

(Galovan & Schramm, 2018). Wood et al. (2022) provide empirical support for the SRM in their

longitudinal study, finding that perceived partner support mediates the impact of individual

stress on gratitude-recognition (i.e., “Responsible Actions”) 12 months later, which then results

in greater intimacy (i.e., “Relational-Connectivity”) between partners at 24 months.

Despite increased interest, there have yet to be substantial advancements in the

measurement of relationship flourishing (Fincham & Beach, 2010; Fowers et al., 2016). Instead,

the emphasis on negative relationship processes that, until recently, has dominated the

literature has largely influenced the way we assess relationship quality. Specifically, existing

measures tend to operationalize relationship quality as a unidimensional construct with a single

bipolar dimension ranging from extremely satisfied to extremely dissatisfied (Fincham & Beach,

2010; Fincham & Rogge, 2010). This overly narrow view of relationship quality fails to capture

the various processes that contribute to positive relationship functioning and further, relationship

flourishing. Additionally, previous research has shown there is more to relationship quality than

just perceptions of satisfaction, particularly within high quality relationships (Fletcher et al.,

2000; Fowers et al., 2016; Galovan et al., 2021). Thus, describing the specific behaviors,

interactions, and cognitions that contribute to the development and maintenance of long-lasting,

flourishing relationships is key to improving both relational and individual well-being.

The present research aims to add to the growing field of positive relationship science

through the development and validation of a novel self-report measure of high-quality romantic

relationships called the Lovebird Scale. The Lovebird Scale aims to go beyond global,

unidimensional measures of relationship quality by capturing specific emotions, thoughts,

beliefs, and behaviors that contribute to relationship flourishing and differentiate these

relationships from other long-term committed relationships. We use the term “lovebirds” as it is

often used colloquially to describe extremely affectionate and long-lasting romantic couples who
6
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

are “in love” with each other, as opposed to just having loving feelings towards one another.

Whereas “soulmate” and “other half” tend to reflect an individual’s beliefs and expectations

about a specific partner or relationships in general (Franiuk et al., 2002), “lovebirds” is a more

accurate description of the feelings of closeness and warmth in everyday behaviors, cognitions,

and interactions that occur between partners that reinforce and further deepen their love for

each other.

Positive affect is central to the concept of flourishing, but few studies have specifically

examined positive affectivity within flourishing relationships (Fincham & Beach, 2010). Thus, a

secondary goal of this study was to explore the affective experiences of individuals in lovebird

relationships using the newly developed Lovebird Scale. We expect the Lovebird Scale to be

associated with more positive affect and less negative affect. Further, we expect the Lovebird

Scale to predict positive and negative affect above and beyond existing measures of

relationship quality. Through this research, we hope to further our understanding of what

constitutes long-lasting, high-quality lovebird relationships, as well as what makes them distinct

from other committed, long-term relationships.

Study 1

Methods

Item Generation

Items on the initial Lovebird Scale were developed based on qualitative interviews of

long-term romantic couples who described themselves as being “lovebirds.” These couples

were asked to describe their relationship and why they considered themselves to be “lovebirds.”

Common themes that arose from these interviews included wanting to support each other’s

goals and aspirations, respecting each other’s opinions, prioritizing each other’s happiness,

appreciating the “little things” their partner does for them, not being afraid to be open and honest

with their partner, physical intimacy (e.g., affection, sex), and loving every aspect of their

partner. The initial set of “lovebird” items were generated based on these themes and quotes
7
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

taken from the interviews. To help distinguish lovebird relationships from other types of

committed, long-term relationships, we developed another set of items aiming to capture

“committed” relationships. In the present research, committed relationships are characterized as

those in which partners may be satisfied with their relationship but would not consider

themselves to be deeply “in love” with each other and may be more motivated to stay together

for reasons other than their love for each other (e.g., financial reasons, children/dependents).

This first iteration of the Lovebird Scale contained 74 items, which were then reviewed

by a panel of relationship experts who excluded items that were redundant or were ambiguously

written. This left 49 items that described both lovebird (e.g., “All of life’s ups and downs seem

pretty insignificant compared to the love that we share,” and “We share a seamless continuum

of compassionate and erotic love”) and committed relationships (e.g., “I have some fundamental

doubts about my partner,” and “Sometimes I think my partner and I come from different

planets”). These items formed the initial Lovebird Scale that was tested in Study 1. Participants

were instructed to read each statement and choose the most appropriate response using a 7-

point Likert scale ranging from Strongly disagree to Strongly agree, keeping their current partner

and relationship in mind.

Recruitment and Participants

A total of 552 participants completed Study 1. Twelve participants were excluded prior to

analyses if they had missing data, reported a relationship length less than six months, or

reported low relationship satisfaction, as measured by the Relationship Assessment Scale

(RAS). We chose to use the RAS to determine eligibility for analyses because it has

demonstrated excellent psychometric properties in previous research (Hendrick, 1988; Vaughn

& Baier, 1999). Low relationship satisfaction was defined as RAS scores more than three

standard deviations below the sample mean (i.e., RAS < 11.08). The final analyzed sample

used for the EFA included N = 540. This resulted in an observation-to-item ratio of

approximately 11, which meets previous recommendations for EFAs (Watkins, 2018). On
8
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

average, participants were 39.9 years old (SD = 13.2), 60.6% female, 80.0% White, and 85.0%

heterosexual. 67.6% participants were married and 91.3% currently lived with their partner.

Participants reported being in their current relationship for an average of 11.4 years (SD = 10.8

years). A summary of sample characteristics for Study 1 can be found in Table 1.

Procedure

Recruitment and data collection for Study 1 occurred in June 2021. Participants were

recruited via CloudResearch (Litman et al., 2017). Participants needed to be at least 18 years

old and currently involved in a romantic relationship for at least six months. Individuals who met

the eligibility criteria and passed CloudResearch data security measures (i.e., ReCAPTCHA)

were invited to complete an online Qualtrics survey (15-20 minutes) about romantic

relationships. All participants provided electronic consent and were offered a monetary incentive

for their participation. An institutional review board at a small, private Southeastern university

reviewed and approved all aspects of this study.

Measures

In addition to the Lovebird Scale, participants completed several other self-report

measures of relationship quality and a demographic questionnaire. The demographic

questionnaire included questions regarding age, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and

relationship history (e.g., length of current relationship, number of previous relationships).

Relationship Assessment Scale. Relationship satisfaction was measured using the

Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS), a brief 7-item scale designed to assess global

relationship satisfaction, with higher scores indicating higher relationship satisfaction (Hendrick,

1988). Example items include “How well does your partner meet your needs?” and “How much

do you love your partner?”

Mutual Psychological Development Questionnaire. Perceived mutuality between

partners was measured using the Mutual Psychological Development Questionnaire (MPDQ)

(Genero et al., 1992). The MPDQ is a 22-item self-report measure in which participants rate
9
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

their own experience as well as perceptions of their partner’s experience when discussing

something of importance to themselves or to their partner (e.g., being receptive, open-minded,

or bored) using a 6-point Likert scale ranging from Never to All the time, with higher scores

indicating greater perceived mutuality. Example items include “be receptive,” or “try to

understand” for the self-subscale, and “respect point of view,” and “see the humor in things” for

the partner subscale. The MPDQ has exhibited excellent internal consistency (α = 0.87), test-

retest reliability (α = 0.90), and construct validity in previous research (Genero et al., 1992).

Relationship Prototypes. Participants were asked to read two investigator-developed

relationship prototypes describing “lovebird” (“You are in love with your partner and feel that you

have found the ‘the love of your life’, a real soul mate…”) and “committed” (“There are many

things that you like and even admire about your partner, but there are also some things that

bother you a lot, and they are not likely to change…”) relationships. Each prototype consisted of

approximately the same word count and semantic structure (M = 165.5 words). Participants

used a sliding scale ranging from 1 to 100 to indicate how accurately each vignette described

their current relationship.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using R Studio (version 2022.12.0+353) (Posit Team, 2022; R Core

Team, 2021). An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed to determine the underlying

factor structure of the initial 49-item Lovebird Scale. The EFA was conducted using principal

axis factoring (PAF) estimation with promax rotation because we expected the identified factors

to be correlated with each other (Watkins, 2018). We used several metrics to determine the

factorability of the data, including inter-item correlations (<0.80), the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO)

Measure of Sampling Adequacy (>0.50), and the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (p < .05) (Knekta

et al., 2019). To determine the appropriate number of factors to be extracted from the data, we

examined eigenvalues (>1.0), cumulative percentage of variance account for (>50%), and Scree

plots. Factor loadings were used to determine which items loaded onto each factor, the number
10
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

of factors to retain, and which items should be considered for elimination. We then used the

following criteria to determine which items should be eliminated: (a) items with factor loadings

less than 0.40; (b) items with cross-loadings greater than 0.20; (c) items with communalities less

than 0.20; and (d) conceptual fit (Knekta et al., 2019). Cronbach’s alphas were also calculated

to assess internal consistency, with values ≥ 0.70 considered acceptable (Hair et al., 2010).

Correlations with the RAS and MPDQ were used to assess the preliminary convergent validity

of the Lovebird Scale. Statistical significance for all correlations was set at the p = .05 level.

Results

Descriptive statistics for all Study 1 variables (means, standard deviations, range, and

reliabilities) can be found in Table 2. Results from the KMO Measure of Sampling Adequacy

(0.97) and the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (χ2(1128) = 16423.08, p < .001) suggested that an

EFA was appropriate for the data. All 49 items had at least one inter-item correlation greater

than 0.30 and no inter-item correlation pairs were greater than 0.80, further supporting the

factorability of the data. A Scree plot identified five factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0

(range = 1.04 to 19.81). Thus, we tested a five-factor EFA solution, which explained 43% of the

variance in the data. However, the fifth factor had high loadings for items that cross-loaded onto

other factors. We then tested a four-factor EFA solution, which explained 45% of the variance in

the data, followed by a three-factor EFA solution, which explained 38% of the variance in the

data. Upon further examination, the three-factor solution yielded three distinct factors that had at

least three items with factor loadings greater than 0.40 that also did not highly load onto the

other factors. Based on this, we decided to proceed with a three-factor solution. From here, we

identified several items that should be considered for elimination due to low factor loadings or

multiple high cross-loadings (Items 3, 7, 8, 9, 11, 21, 23, 25, 42, and 43). We removed these

items in a stepwise fashion and then reevaluated the three-factor structure. At this point, we

identified several other items that should be eliminated due to low factor loadings or multiple
11
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

cross-loadings (Items 43, 39, 2, 40, 16, 29, 35, 28, and 15), leaving 31 items. The final three-

factor solution explained 46% of the variance in the items (Table 3).

After reviewing the content of each factor, we named the three factors as follows: Factor

1 was labeled “Mutuality,” Factor 2 was labeled “Romance,” and Factor 3 was labeled

“Disconnect.” The Mutuality subscale captures the pro-relationship behaviors and social

interactions that signal trust, acceptance, respect, and support. The Romance subscale reflects

the behavioral and cognitive processes that facilitate feelings of love and passion between

partners, such as physical intimacy and relational savoring. The Disconnect subscale

represents the opposite of lovebird relationships – that is, its items reflect indifference towards

the relationship, a lack of authenticity, and relational boredom. All three factors demonstrated

high internal consistency (α = 0.86 to 0.93). Unsurprisingly, Mutuality and Romance were

positively correlated with each other (r = .72, p < .001) and negatively correlated with

Disconnect (Mutuality: r = -.59, p < .001; Romance: r = -.56, p <.001).

We then tested the preliminary convergent validity of the Lovebird Scale by examining

correlations between the three subscales, the relationship prototypes, and existing measures of

relationship quality (RAS and MPDQ). Mutuality was highly correlated with the RAS (r =.76, p

< .001) as well as both MPDQ subscales (MPDQ Self: r = .57, p < .001; MPDQ Partner: r = .74,

p < .001). Romance was also strongly correlated with the RAS (r = .69, p < .001) and both

MPDQ subscales (MPDQ Self: r = .57, p < .001; MPDQ Partner: r = .60, p < .001). Disconnect

was negatively correlated with all three measures (RAS: r = -.71, p < .001; MPDQ Self: r = -.69,

p < .001; MPDQ Partner: r = -.65, p < .001). The lovebird relationship prototype was positively

correlated with Mutuality (r = .72, p < .001) and Romance (r = .68, p < .001) and negatively

correlated with Disconnect (r = -.57, p < .001), while the opposite trend was observed in

correlations with the committed relationship prototype (Mutuality: r = -.28, p < .001; Romance: r

= -.35, p < .001; Disconnect: r = .48, p < .001). A summary of these correlations can be found in

Table 4.
12
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

Study 1 Discussion

Study 1 employed an exploratory factor analysis approach to investigate the underlying

factor structure of the initial 49-item Lovebird Scale. Items were generated based on qualitative

interviews conducted with romantic couples who self-identified as “lovebirds,” and were then

refined by a panel of experts. Both empirical (eigenvalues, factor loadings, communalities) and

theoretical (conceptual fit, previous research) perspectives were considered when evaluating

the overall fit of the factor structure. 18 items were excluded from further consideration for

inclusion in the Lovebird Scale, resulting in a 31-item scale with three distinct factors: Mutuality,

Romance, and Disconnect. All three factors demonstrated high internal consistency and were

strongly correlated with existing measures of relationship quality, providing preliminary evidence

for the psychometric properties of the Lovebird Scale. A more stringent test of the factor

structure of the Lovebird Scale was conducted in Study 2 using confirmatory factor analyses

(CFAs).

Study 2

Methods

Recruitment and Participants

A total of 223 participants completed Study 2. Eight participants were removed prior to

analyses based on the exclusion criteria described in Study 1, resulting in a final analyzed

sample of N = 215. On average, participants were 38.7 years old (SD = 11.6), 67% female,

84.7% White, and 86% heterosexual. 61.4% participants were married and 91.6% currently

lived with their partner. Participants reported being in their current relationship for an average of

10.5 years (SD = 12.7 years). A summary of sample characteristics for Study 2 can be found in

Table 1.

Procedure

Recruitment and data collection for Study 2 occurred in October 2021. Like Study 1,

participants were recruited via CloudResearch (Litman et al., 2017) and were offered a
13
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

monetary incentive for their participation. Individuals who met the eligibility criteria (i.e., at least

18 years old, currently involved in a romantic relationship for at least six months, had not

participated in Study 1) and passed CloudResearch data security measures (i.e., ReCAPTCHA)

were invited to complete an online Qualtrics survey (15-20 minutes) about romantic

relationships. An institutional review board at a small, private Southeastern university reviewed

and approved all aspects of this study. All participants provided electronic consent prior to

participation.

Measures

In addition to the Lovebird Scale, RAS, MPDQ, and relationship prototypes, participants

completed the Perceived Relationship Quality Components Inventory (PRQC) and the

Relationship Quality Scale (RQS). Participants also completed the demographic questionnaire

used in Study 1.

Perceived Relationship Quality Components Inventory. The PRQC is an 18-item

measure of relationship quality containing six subscales representing various components of

relationship quality: Satisfaction, Commitment, Intimacy, Trust, Passion, and Love. The PRQC

uses a 7-point Likert scale ranging from Not at all to Extremely, with higher scores indicating

higher levels of each relationship quality component. Example items include “How satisfied are

you with your relationship?” and “How connected are you to your partner?” The PRQC has also

demonstrated high internal consistency in previous research (Fletcher et al., 2000).

Relationship Quality Scale. The RQS is a brief, 9-item measure of relationship quality

that was developed using a diverse sample of individuals representing over 60 countries.

Participants are asked to rate their degree of agreement with various statements regarding their

current relationship using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly disagree to Strongly

agree, with higher scores indicating higher relationship quality. Example items include “This is

the relationship I have always dreamed of,” and “I think of my partner as my soulmate.” The

RQS has demonstrated high internal consistency in previous research (Chonody et al., 2018).
14
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using R Studio (version 2022.12.0+353) (Posit Team, 2022; R Core

Team, 2021). A series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) with robust maximum likelihood

estimation (MLR) were conducted using the R package lavaan (Rosseel, 2012). We first tested

the model proposed by the EFA in Study 1, followed by a one-factor model and an orthogonal

model to examine the degree of improvement in model fit resulting from the proposed factor

structure. The variance standardization method was used to fix factor variances to 1 and allow

factor loadings to be freely estimated. Consistent with previous recommendations, overall model

fit was evaluated using several different model fit indices: root-mean-square error of

approximation (RMSEA) ≤ 0.06, comparative fit index (CFI) ≥ 0.90, standardized root-mean-

square residual (SRMR) ≤ 0.08, and chi-square/degrees of freedom ratio (χ2/df) ≤ 3 (Hu &

Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2016; Knekta et al., 2019). We then consulted modification indices to

determine if there were any empirically and/or theoretically reasonable modifications that could

be made to improve overall model fit. Once the best fitting model was identified, we then

examined a higher-order model in which the subscales of the Lovebird Scale were nested within

a second-order factor representing lovebird relationships globally. Cronbach’s alphas were also

calculated to assess internal consistency, with values ≥ 0.70 considered acceptable (Hair et al.,

2010). We tested the convergent validity of the Lovebird Scale by examining Pearson

correlations with existing measures of relationship quality (RAS, MPDQ, PRQC, RQS).

Statistical significance for all correlations was set at the p = .05 level.

Results

Descriptive statistics for all Study 2 variables (means, standard deviations, range, and

reliabilities) can be found in Table 5. Results from the CFA on the EFA model were obtained

(χ2(431) = 875.9, p < .001; χ2/df = 2.03; CFI = .857; SRMR = .062; RMSEA = .069, 95% CI

[.063, .075], p < .001). The EFA model demonstrated significantly better model fit compared to
15
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

an orthogonal model and single-factor model, supporting the use of a multidimensional model

with correlated factors. Based on modification indices, we made several revisions to the original

EFA model in an incremental fashion: item 12 (“My partner and I have recurring problems that

we can’t get past”) was moved from Mutuality to Disconnect, item 37 (“My partner and I go

through life savoring moments together”) was moved from Romance to Mutuality, and item 13

(“We are each other’s best friend”) was moved from Mutuality to Romance; item 14 (“My partner

and I know how to make each other laugh, even on our bad days”) was removed from the model

due to high cross-loadings on Mutuality and Romance; and items 4, 19, 26, and 27 were

removed from the model due to low loadings on their assigned factors. The model with the

remaining 26 items produced acceptable model fit statistics (χ2(296) = 485.6, p < .001; χ2/df =

1.64; CFI = .925; SRMR = .055; RMSEA = .055, 95% CI [.047, .062], p = .162). Standardized

regression weights ranged from 0.556 to 0.882 and were all statistically significant (p <.001).

Additionally, all item variances were positive (i.e., no Heywood cases) and statistically

significant (p <.001).

Given the high inter-factor correlations, we then tested a higher-order model, in which

the three factors were nested within one higher order factor representing lovebird relationships

(Figure 1). Model fit statistics for the higher-order model were equivalent to those produced by

the first-order model. The higher-order Lovebird factor accounted for a large portion of the

variance among the first-order factors, with R2 values ranging from 0.746 to 0.871. Based on the

CFAs, we retained 26 items for the Lovebird Scale (see Appendix): 10 items for Mutuality, eight

items for Romance, and eight items for Disconnect. The three subscales exhibited high internal

consistency, with Cronbach alphas ranging from 0.87 to 0.92. The higher-order Lovebird factor

also had high internal consistency with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.95. A summary of model fit

statistics for the EFA, one-factor, orthogonal, and higher order models can be found in Table 6.

Convergent validity for the revised Lovebird Scale was tested using correlations with the

relationship prototypes and existing measures of relationship quality (RAS, MPDQ, PRQC, and
16
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

RQS). All correlations were statistically significant and in the expected direction. Replicating

findings from Study 1, Mutuality was positively correlated with the RAS and both MPDQ

subscales (RAS: r = .83, p < .001; MPDQ Self: r = .69, p < .001; MPDQ Partner: r = .79, p

< .001), as was Romance (RAS: r = .67, p < .001; MPDQ Self: r = .63, p < .001; MPDQ Partner:

r = .64, p < .001). Like Study 1, Disconnect was negatively correlated with the RAS and MPDQ

subscales (RAS: r = -75, p < .001; MPDQ Self: r = -.68, p < .001; MPDQ Partner: r = -.69, p

< .001). Mutuality was positively correlated with all six PRQC subscales (r = .46 to .84, p

< .001), especially the Relationship Satisfaction subscale. Romance was also positively

correlated with the six PRQC subscales (r = .55 to .81, p < .001), with the largest correlation

being with the Love subscale. Disconnect was negatively correlated with the PRQC subscales

(r = -.45 to -.71, p < .001). All three subscales were strongly correlated with the RQS, a measure

of positive relationship functioning (Mutuality: r = .86, p < .001; Romance: r = .79, p < .001;

Disconnect: r = -.78, p < .001). The lovebird relationship prototype was positively correlated

with composite lovebird scores (r = .79, p < .001), Mutuality (r = .75, p < .001), and Romance (r

= .73, p < .001) and negatively correlated with Disconnect (r = -.68 p < .001), while the opposite

trend was observed in correlations with the committed relationship prototype (Composite

lovebird scores: r = -.54, p < .001; Mutuality: r = -.41, p < .001; Romance: r = -.44, p < .001;

Disconnect: r = .60, p < .001).

Finally, we examined correlations between composite lovebird scores and existing

measures of relationship quality. Composite lovebird scores were created by reverse scoring

items on the Disconnect subscale and then calculating the average of all three subscales. We

predicted this composite lovebird score to be highly positively correlated with existing measures

of relationship quality, particularly the RQS. As expected, composite lovebird scores were

significantly correlated with RAS scores (r = .84, p < .001), both MPDQ subscales (MPDQ Self:

r = .75, p < .001; MPDQ Partner: r = .79, p < .001), all six PRQC subscales (r = .56 to .80, p
17
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

< .001), and the RQS (r = .90, p < .001). A summary of correlations between all Study 2

variables can be found in Table 7.

Study 2 Discussion

In Study 2, we conducted a series of CFAs to evaluate the structure of the Lovebird

Scale in a new sample. The three-factor, 31-item model proposed by the EFA exhibited less

than satisfactory model fit. Based on modification indices, we made several revisions to the

model. Three items (Items 12, 13, and 37) were moved to different factors and five items (Items

4, 14, 19, 26, and 27) were removed due to high cross-loadings or low loadings on the assigned

factor, resulting in a final 26-item scale. To account for high intercorrelations between factors,

we then tested a second-order CFA model with a single higher-order factor representing all

three subscales of the Lovebird Scale. The final higher-order model demonstrated good model

fit, as well as acceptable psychometric properties. Finally, the three subscales and higher order

Lovebird factor were significantly correlated with existing measures of relationship quality, with

effect sizes ranging from medium to large. Because we made several modifications to the

model, additional cross-validation analyses were warranted to ensure the reliability, validity, and

replicability of the Lovebird Scale. Thus, we aimed to cross-validate the revised Lovebird Scale

using an independent sample in Study 3.

Study 3

Methods

Recruitment and Participants

A total of 252 participants completed Study 2. Eleven participants were removed prior to

analyses based on the exclusion criteria described in Study 1, resulting in a final analyzed

sample of N = 241. On average, participants were 39.1 years old (SD = 10.2), 69.7% female,

83% White, and 86.7% heterosexual. Seventy percent of participants were married and 92.9%

currently lived with their partner. Participants reported being in their current relationship for an
18
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

average of 11.7 years (SD = 11.2 years). A summary of sample characteristics for Study 3 can

be found in Table 1.

Procedure

Recruitment and data collection for Study 3 occurred in December 2021. Like Studies 1

and 2, participants were recruited via CloudResearch (Litman et al., 2017) and were offered a

monetary incentive for their participation. Individuals who met the eligibility criteria (i.e., at least

18 years old, currently involved in a romantic relationship for at least six months, had not

participated in Study 1 or 2) and passed CloudResearch data security measures (i.e.,

ReCAPTCHA) were invited to complete an online Qualtrics survey (15-20 minutes) about

romantic relationships. An institutional review board at a small, private Southeastern university

reviewed and approved all aspects of this study. All participants provided electronic consent

prior to participation.

Measures

In addition to the Lovebird Scale, RAS, MPDQ, and relationship prototypes, participants

also completed the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS-32), Adult Attachment Scale (AAS), and the

Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), as well as several other measures related to

emotional abilities not discussed in the present paper. Since the survey for Study 3 was longer

than the first two surveys, we also included a six-item attention check measure (Infrequency

Scale). Participants also completed the demographic questionnaire used in Studies 1 and 2.

Dyadic Adjustment Scale. The DAS-32 is a 32-item scale designed to assess

relationship quality in cohabiting or married couples (Spanier, 1976). The DAS-32 consists of

ordinal, Likert, and dichotomous scales, with total scores ranging from 0 to 151. The DAS-32

has also demonstrated acceptable internal consistency and construct validity in previous

research (Spanier, 1976).

Adult Attachment Scale. Anxious and avoidant attachment were measured using the

revised 18-item Adult Attachment Scale (AAS). Statements describe varying degrees of comfort
19
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

with closeness and intimacy, as well as fear of rejection, within close relationships. Participants

are asked to read and rate how characteristic each statement is of them using a 5-point Likert

scale ranging from 1 (Not at all characteristic of me) to 5 (Very characteristic of me) (Collins,

1996). The revised AAS has demonstrated acceptable reliability in previous research (Collins,

1996).

Positive and Negative Affect Schedule. Affective state was measured using the

Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), a 20-item self-report measure containing 10

positively valenced affect words (e.g., “Enthusiastic”, “Attentive”) and 10 negatively valanced

affect words (e.g., “Irritable”, “Upset”) (Merz et al., 2013). Participants are asked to indicate the

extent to which they have felt each affective state over the past week using a 5-point Likert

scale ranging from 1 (Very slightly or not at all) to 5 (Extremely). The PANAS has also

demonstrated high internal consistency in previous research (Merz et al., 2013).

Infrequency Scale. A brief, 6-item Infrequency Scale was also included in the

assessment battery as an attention check measure. Previous research suggests including

attention check measures in online surveys to ensure participants are paying attention to the

questions and are answering honestly (Berinsky et al., 2014). The Infrequency Scale is an

investigator-developed measure that is typically embedded within an existing measure and

includes items such as, “I enjoy visiting London, Wisconsin,” and, “I once rode my bicycle from

New York City to San Diego.” In this study, the Infrequency Scale was embedded within the

Adult Attachment Scale since the scale points matched those of the Infrequency items.

Infrequency items were listed after every three AAS items. Participants who scored over the

sample mean Infrequency score (M = 1.1) were removed prior to analysis.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using R Studio (version 2022.12.0+353) (Posit Team, 2022; R Core

Team, 2021). Confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) with robust maximum likelihood estimation

(MLR) were conducted using the R package lavaan (Rosseel, 2012). The variance
20
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

standardization method was used to fix factor variances to 1 and allow factor loadings to be

freely estimated. Consistent with previous recommendations, overall model fit was evaluated

using several different model fit indices: root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) ≤

0.06, comparative fit index (CFI) ≥ 0.90, standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR) ≤

0.08, and chi-square/degrees of freedom ratio (χ2/df) ≤ 3 (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2016;

Knekta et al., 2019). Cronbach’s alphas were also calculated to assess internal consistency,

with values ≥ 0.70 considered acceptable (Hair et al., 2010).

We tested the convergent validity of the Lovebird Scale by examining Pearson

correlations with existing measures of relationship quality (RAS, MPDQ, PRQC, RQS). We used

the Fronell-Larcker Criterion to assess discriminant validity, which states that the square root of

the average variance extracted of each latent variable must be greater than the correlation

between the latent variable and other constructs (i.e., attachment style). Finally, we tested the

incremental validity of the Lovebird Scale by estimating a series of regression models where

both the Lovebird Scale and the RAS or DAS-32 were entered as simultaneous predictors of

affective state (PANAS). Statistical significance for all correlations was set at the p = .05 level.

Results

Descriptive statistics for all Study 3 variables (means, standard deviations, range, and

reliabilities) can be found in Table 8. The higher-order model demonstrated acceptable model fit

in our cross-validation analyses, although slightly lower than those seen in Study 2 (χ2(296) =

616.64, p < .001; χ2/df = 2.08; CFI = .885; SRMR = .061; RMSEA = .067, 95% CI [.060, .074], p

< .001). Standardized regression weights ranged from 0.469 to 0.833 and were all statistically

significant (p < .001). The higher-order Lovebird factor accounted for a large portion of the

variance among the first-order factors, with R2 values ranging from 0.818 to 0.845. The three

subscales exhibited high internal consistency, with Cronbach alphas ranging from 0.85 to 0.92.
21
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

The higher-order Lovebird factor also had high internal consistency with a Cronbach’s alpha of

0.94.

Like Studies 1 and 2, we tested the convergent validity of the Lovebird Scale by

examining correlations with the relationship prototypes and existing measures of relationship

quality (RAS, MPDQ, and DAS-32). All correlations were statistically significant and in the

expected direction. Mutuality and Romance were positively correlated with RAS scores

(Mutuality: r = .82, p < .001; Romance: r = .70, p < .001), while Disconnect was negatively

correlated with these measures (RAS: r = -.78, p < .001; MPDQ Self: r = -.61, p < .001; MPDQ

Partner: r = -.70, p < .001). Mutuality and Romance produced similar patterns of correlations

with the DAS-32, with both subscales having the largest correlation with the DAS Satisfaction

subscale (Mutuality: r = .81, p < .001; Romance: r = .68, p < .001) and the smallest correlation

with the DAS Consensus subscale (Mutuality: r = .47, p < .001; Romance: r = .41, p < .001).

Disconnect was negatively correlated with the DAS-32 (r = -.46 to -.79, p < .001). Correlations

between composite lovebird scores and existing relationship quality measures ranged from .50

to .86, with the smallest correlation being with the DAS Consensus subscale and largest

correlation being with the RAS and DAS Satisfaction subscale. The lovebird relationship

prototype was positively correlated with composite lovebird scores (r = .79, p < .001), Mutuality

(r = .76, p < .001), and Romance (r = .74, p < .001) and negatively correlated with Disconnect (r

= -.71, p < .001), while the opposite trend was observed in correlations with the committed

relationship prototype (Composite lovebird scores: r = -.37, p < .001; Mutuality: r = -.24, p

< .001; Romance: r = -.35, p < .001; Disconnect: r = .42, p < .001).

We assessed discriminant validity using Fronell-Larcker Criterion. To do this, we first

computed the AVE for the three subscales and the higher-order Lovebird factor, which ranged

from 0.43 to 0.55. We then calculated the square root of each AVE and compared them with

correlations with the AAS Anxiety and Avoidant subscales (Table 5). We observed small, but

statistically significant negative correlations between Mutuality, Romance, and the AAS
22
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

subscales (r = -.13 to -.23, p < .05), while Disconnect was positively correlated with both AAS

subscales (r = .17 to .34, p < .01). Composite lovebird scores were negatively correlated with

both AAS subscales (AAS Anxiety: r = -.20, p < .01; AAS Avoidant: r = -.28, p < .001).

Importantly, these correlations were smaller than the square roots of the AVE for each latent

variable, providing initial evidence for the discriminant validity of the Lovebird Scale.

Prior to our tests of incremental validity, we examined associations between the

Lovebird Scale and positive and negative affect (PANAS). We expected composite lovebird

scores, Mutuality, and Romance to be associated with higher positive affect and lower negative

affect, while Disconnect would exhibit the opposite pattern. As we predicted, Mutuality and

Romance were positively correlated with the PANAS Positive subscale (Mutuality: r = .20, p

< .01; Romance: r = .34, p < .001), as were composite lovebird scores (r = .25, p < .001).

Surprisingly, neither Mutuality nor Romance were significantly correlated with the PANAS

Negative subscale, but composite lovebird scores were, although this correlation was small (r =

-.14, p < .05). Disconnect was negatively correlated with the PANAS Positive subscale (r = -.18,

p < .01) and positively correlated with the PANAS Negative subscale (r = .21, p < .01), as

expected. A summary of correlations between all Study 3 variables can be found in Table 9.

Finally, we tested the incremental validity of the Lovebird Scale by regressing PANAS

Positive and Negative scores on composite lovebird scores while controlling for the RAS and

DAS-32. We also controlled for sex (female), relationship status (married), and age in each set

of models. As seen in Table 10, the Lovebird Scale emerged as a significant and unique

predictor of PANAS Positive scores above and beyond the RAS and DAS-32, but not PANAS

Negative scores. In both sets of models, composite lovebird scores were positively related to

positive affect (RAS model: β = 2.86, p = .007; DAS-32 model: β = 2.28, p = .005), such that

higher lovebird scores were associated with higher levels of positive affect. Composite lovebird

scores were not significantly related to negative affect when controlling for the RAS and DAS-32

(RAS model: β = -0.91, p = .392; DAS-32 model: β = 0.19, p = .809).

23
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

Study 3 Discussion

The purpose of Study 3 was to cross-validate the factor structure from Study 2 in an

independent sample. Using the same methods as Study 2, CFA confirmed the existence of

three subscales (Mutuality, Romance, Disconnect) that together form one higher order factor

representing lovebird relationships. Although model fit indices for the higher-order model in this

sample were slightly less than the recommended cut offs, they were still in an acceptable range

(Hu & Bentler, 1999). The Lovebird Scale exhibited high internal consistency, with Cronbach’s

alphas ranging from 0.85 to 0.95. Evidence for the convergent validity of the Lovebird Scale was

demonstrated through large correlations with existing measures of relationship quality, which

included the RAS, MPDQ, and DAS-32. Mutuality and Romance, as well as the composite

lovebird factor, were highly positively correlated with these measures, while Disconnect was

negatively correlated with them, as expected. The Lovebird Scale also exhibited good

discriminant validity, as evidenced by small correlations with the AAS Anxiety and Avoidant

subscales, which were smaller than the square root of the AVE for each of the latent constructs

captured by the Lovebird Scale.

Preliminary evidence for the incremental validity of the Lovebird Scale was

demonstrated by regressing positive and negative affect (PANAS) on composite lovebird

scores, while controlling for existing measures of relationship quality (RAS and DAS-32).

Composite lovebird scores emerged as a significant and unique predictor of positive affect

above and beyond both the RAS and DAS-32. Further, neither the RAS nor DAS were

significant predictors of positive affect when composite lovebird scores were entered into the

model simultaneously. This suggests that composite lovebird scores may offer additional insight

into positive affectivity within high-quality romantic relationships. We did not observe the same

pattern when examining the regression models predicting negative affect. Specifically,

composite lovebird scores were not a significant predictor of negative affect when controlling for

RAS and DAS-32 scores. While RAS scores were also not related to negative affect when
24
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

entered alongside composite lovebird scores, DAS-32 scores were still negatively related to

negative affect even when composite lovebird scores were included in the model. One possible

explanation for this is the scope of the Lovebird Scale compared to the DAS-32. The DAS was

originally developed to distinguish between married and divorced couples, hence the overall

emphasis on the (lack of) communication within the relationship (Fincham & Rogge, 2010).

Thus, the DAS may be better at tapping into the negative affectivity within relationships than the

Lovebird Scale.

General Discussion

Positive relationship science has garnered increasing interest in recent years, with more

researchers and clinicians recognizing the importance of understanding what contributes to

positive relationship functioning as opposed to relationship dysfunction (Fincham & Beach,

2010; Fowers et al., 2016). Yet, few existing measures of relationship quality capture the

specific processes that contribute to relationship flourishing (Fowers et al., 2016). The present

study aimed to address this gap in the literature through the development and validation of the

Lovebird Scale. The Lovebird Scale is a multidimensional measure of relationship quality

designed to assess the various behavioral, social, cognitive, and affective processes that occur

within long-lasting, high-quality “lovebird” relationships that may not be adequately captured by

existing unidimensional measures (Fincham & Rogge, 2010; Fletcher et al., 2000). The

development of a domain-specific measure of high-quality relationships is an important step for

furthering our understanding of relationship flourishing and the key factors that contribute to

successful, long-lasting romantic relationships.

Three studies were conducted to develop and validated the Lovebird Scale using data

collected from over 850 individuals in long-term committed romantic relationships. Results

supported a higher-order factor structure with three subscales nested within one overarching

“lovebird” factor. The three subscales we identified were labeled Mutuality, Romance, and

Disconnect. Cronbach’s alphas for the three subscales and composite lovebird factor surpassed
25
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

standard criteria (≥ 0.70) across all three studies, supporting the internal consistency of the

scale. The Lovebird Scale also exhibited good convergent validity across Studies 1 through 3,

as well as satisfactory discriminant and incremental validity in Study 3. Below we describe the

content of each subscale and how each relate to previous research on positive relationship

processes.

Mutuality

Mutuality within intimate relationships has previously been defined as the “modes of

social interaction that facilitate participation in and growth through the relationship” (Genero et

al., 1992, p. 37). In line with this definition, our Mutuality subscale captures the behaviors and

interactions that signal trust, respect, acceptance, and support between partners. Specifically,

lovebirds are respectful and considerate of each other when sharing their feelings and opinions,

instead of being afraid that their partner may react with contempt or judgment (e.g., “My partner

and I respect each other’s opinions, even when we don’t agree with each other,” and “I can talk

to my partner about anything, even if it is a difficult conversation”). Mutuality was highly

correlated with the MPDQ Partner subscale across all three studies, which measures the

degree to which an individual believes their partner is receptive and open when they are

discussing something of interest to them. This is particularly compelling, as it reflects one’s

perception of their partner being capable of mutuality, rather than just an introspective reflection

of one’s own mutuality.

Mutuality also signals dependability and responsiveness of one’s partner, both of which

are important for building trust within one’s relationship (Coan et al., 2013; Weigel, 2010). This

is illustrated through large, positive correlations between the Mutuality subscale and the PRQC

Trust subscale. Trust is an important marker of relationship functioning and stability, as it

indicates an individual’s confidence in the ability to confide in and depend on their partner,

without worry, jealousy, or suspicion (Campbell & Stanton, 2019; Kito, 2016). Couples with

higher levels of trust tend to attribute their partner’s behaviors and motives during a conflict
26
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

situation more positively, which can help promote trust and relationship maintenance over time

(Miller & Rempel, 2004; Rempel et al., 2001). Higher levels of mutuality within lovebird

relationships may also facilitate authenticity (“I don’t have to sacrifice aspects of myself to keep

my partner happy”) and goal sharing (“I support my partner in their goals and aspirations, and

they do the same for me”), both of which have been linked to trust and intimacy within close

relationships (Fowers & Owenz, 2010; Wickham, 2013). Further, both authenticity and goal-

sharing have been cited as key positive relationship processes associated with relationship

flourishing (Fowers & Owenz, 2010; Galovan & Schramm, 2018).

Romance

According to Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love, romantic love encompasses the

passion and intimacy components of love (Sternberg, 1986). Sternberg (1986, p. 124) describes

romantic lovers as those who are “not only drawn physically to each other but are also bonded

emotionally,” much like those depicted in classic works of literature like Romeo and Juliet. In line

with this, the Romance subscale captures the behavioral and cognitive processes that facilitate

love and passion between partners, such as physical intimacy and relational savoring. Research

has generally focused on emotional intimacy as a key predictor of relationship quality; however,

our findings emphasize the importance of physical intimacy in promoting lovebird relationships

as well. We found two aspects of physical intimacy especially important for fostering lovebird

relationships – sexual intimacy (e.g., “Our sex life is deeply satisfying”) and physical touch (e.g.,

“Touching is natural and fundamental to our relationship”). Convergent correlations revealed

that the Romance subscale was strongly correlated with global assessment of relationship

quality, as well as more specific components of relationship quality such as emotional intimacy,

passion, and love. Indeed, sexual intimacy plays a vital role in the quality and maintenance of

romantic relationships (Muise et al., 2018), and previous research has also shown that

affectionate touch is positively associated with relationship satisfaction, perceived intimacy, and

couple’s positive affectivity (Debrot et al., 2013; Hesse & Mikkelson, 2017; Jakubiak & Feeney,
27
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

2016; Wagner et al., 2020). Based on previous findings (Yoo et al., 2014), these results suggest

that physical intimacy may help foster lovebird relationships by increasing emotional intimacy,

passion, and feelings of love between partners.

The Romance subscale also measures instances of relational savoring within lovebird

relationships. Broadly speaking, savoring refers to an individual’s capacity to attend to and

appreciate positive experiences; relational savoring, on the other hand, focuses specifically on

savoring experiences that involve a romantic partner (Borelli et al., 2015; Bryant, 2021). Prior

work suggests that relational savoring may be an important interpersonal resource for romantic

partners, as it is associated with several indicators of both individual and relational well-being

including more positive emotions, fewer negative emotions, relationship quality, and dyadic

adjustment, and has been shown to buffer the negative effects of relationship stressors on

relationship satisfaction, especially for those in highly satisfied couples (Borelli et al., 2015;

Borelli et al., 2014; Borelli et al., 2020; Bryant, 2021; Costa-Ramalho et al., 2015; Lenger &

Gordon, 2019). Convergent correlations revealed a large positive correlation between the

Romance subscale and the RQS, highlighting the role of relational savoring in promoting

positive relationship processes. Additionally, Romance was positively associated with the PRQC

Love and Intimacy subscales, which suggests that relational savoring may help foster and

intensify feelings of love towards and closeness with one’s partner within lovebird relationships.

Disconnect

Factor analyses identified a subset of items that represented the opposite of lovebird

relationships, which we called Disconnect. The Disconnect subscale is comprised of items that

reflect feelings of ambivalence and indifference within the relationship, all of which are

characteristic of “numbed” relationships (Fincham & Beach, 2010). A lack of positive relationship

processes may trigger feelings of relational ambivalence, which is defined as contradictory or

inconsistent feelings towards one’s partner and the relationship (e.g., “Although I love my

partner, I would not say that I am currently ‘in love’”) (Holt-Lunstad & Uchino, 2019; Ross et al.,
28
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

2019). One indicator of ambivalence is extradyadic desire, which refers to a desire for an

attractive alternative to one’s current partner (Zoppolat et al., 2022) – this is captured by items

such as “I am easily attracted to others when I am away from home.” Such ambivalence may

eventually lead to relational distancing, a central feature of romantic disengagement in which an

individual employs various behavioral (e.g., not spending time with one’s partner; “I feel like I

need space after we spend a lot of time together”) and/or emotional strategies (e.g., avoiding

self-disclosure; “I am more myself when I am along than when I am with my partner”) to create

distance between oneself and their partner (Callaci et al., 2020; Holt-Lunstad & Uchino, 2019).

Large negative correlations with the DAS Cohesion and PRQC Intimacy and Love subscales

may reflect how ambivalent relationship partners may experience less intimacy and fewer

feelings of love as they try to “distance” themselves from their partner.

The Disconnect subscale illustrates how the absence of positive relationship processes

may lead to disaffection, which refers to the gradual decline in love and increase in feelings of

indifference towards one’s partner (Abbasi & Alghamdi, 2017). Disaffection is often initiated by

negative “turning-point” experiences in the relationship followed by the three stages of

disaffection: disillusionment (i.e., qualities once perceived positively are progressively viewed

negatively), tunnel vision (i.e., focus on a partner’s negative qualities), and indifference (Abbasi

& Alghamdi, 2017). Items such as “Sometimes I think my partner and I come from different

planets” and “My partner and I have recurring problems that we can’t get past” reflect these

various stages of relationship disaffection. The Disconnect subscale was moderately negatively

associated with global measures of relationship quality, consistent with previous findings

(Abbasi & Alghamdi, 2017; Barry et al., 2008). Indeed, disaffection is a leading cause of

relationship distress and frequently cited reason for seeking marriage counseling (Abbasi &

Alghamdi, 2017). Negative correlations between the Disconnect subscale and the PRQC

Intimacy and Trust subscales further illustrates the deterioration of both physical and emotional

closeness within indifferent relationships.

29
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

Affective Experiences Within Lovebird Relationships

Positive affect has been cited as a central feature of relationship flourishing (Fincham &

Beach, 2010). Thus, a secondary goal of this study was to examine the affective state of

individuals within lovebird relationships. We hypothesized that characteristics of lovebird

relationships to be associated with higher levels of positive affect and lower levels of negative

affect. As predicted, composite lovebird scores, as well as the two lovebird subscales, were

associated with higher levels of positive affect, suggesting that individuals in lovebird

relationships tend to experience more positive affectivity within a given week. Notably, the

Romance subscale was more strongly associated with positive affect than the Mutuality

subscale. In the context of lovebird relationships, taking time to think about and enjoy one’s

partner appears to be an important mechanism for increasing positive affect, which makes

sense given that savoring is a self-regulatory process used to generate positive emotions

(Borelli et al., 2020; Costa-Ramalho et al., 2015; Lenger & Gordon, 2019). Physical intimacy has

also been linked to emotional well-being, including higher levels of positive affect and lower

levels of negative affect (Debrot et al., 2017). A daily diary study by Debrot et al. (2017) found

that sex was associated with higher levels of same-day positive affect and predicted next-day

positive affect, whereas positive affect did not increase the likelihood of having sex. Thus,

physical intimacy may enhance feelings of closeness between partners, which in turn promotes

higher levels of positive emotion within these types of relationships.

Interestingly, there was no correlation between lovebird characteristics and negative

affect. While surprising, there are several possible explanations for this finding. First, people in

lovebird relationships may value and validate whatever the partner is feeling whether it is

positive or negative, and there is no particular emphasis on making sure the other person does

not experience negative affect. Second, even though they may experience negative affect, the

higher levels of positive affect reported in lovebird relationships may “cancel out” the negative

emotions to some degree. In fact, Gottman (1994) observed that divorce is more likely if couples
30
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

displayed a ratio of positive to negative emotions of less than 5-to-1 during a conflict task.

Couples will inevitably experience negative emotions during conflict; however, highly satisfied

couples, whom Gottman and Gottman (2017) call “masters of relationships,” do not enter these

states as often and when they do enter them, they are able to escape more easily. Third, it is

possible that the time to recovery for a given level of negative affect may be shorter in lovebird

relationships. Although there is evidence to suggest that social sharing can lead to momentary

increases in negative affect (Rimé et al., 2020), a recent study by Rauers and Riediger (2022)

found that sharing daily hassles predicted momentary and long-term increases in relationship

closeness in romantic partners. However, since there was no significant association in the

current sample, we cannot rule out the possibility that the association was missed with this

sample size. Future research should examine the types of loving and other positive feelings that

characterize lovebird versus committed ambivalent relationships (e.g., being in love as well as

being happy, satisfied, warm, etc.). Longitudinal or daily experience studies can also track this

ratio over time to determine how it relates to temporal changes in relationship quality.

Finally, we found that Disconnect was associated with lower levels of positive affect and

higher levels of negative affect. This is not surprising, given that aspects of “numbed”

relationships such as ambivalence and relational distancing have been associated with greater

negative affect in previous research (Harasymchuk & Fehr, 2012; Holt-Lunstad & Uchino, 2019;

Ross et al., 2019). Moreover, indifferent relationships have been characterized by a lack of

positivity within the relationship, which may explain the negative association between

Disconnect and positive affect (Harasymchuk & Fehr, 2012; Holt-Lunstad & Uchino, 2019; Ross

et al., 2019). Further, Gottman’s research also revealed that some couples do not engage in

negative, hostile behavior during conflict; rather, they behave in a more detached way,

experiencing very little positive emotion during conflict interactions. Though these relationships

may last longer than the “disastrous” relationships, the lack of positive affect will eventually

result in relationship dissolution over time (Gottman & Gottman, 2017).

31
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

Attachment Processes in Lovebird Relationships

We chose to test discriminant validity using a measure of attachment style because it is

related to but conceptually distinct from relationship quality (Li & Chan, 2012). Attachment style

is closely linked to various cognitive, emotional, and behavioral indicators of relationship quality

and functioning, including satisfaction, closeness, emotional experience, and conflict resolution

behaviors (Li & Chan, 2012). Composite lovebird scores, as well as the Mutuality and Romance

subscales, were associated with less anxious and avoidant attachment. This finding is

expected, as lovebird couples tend to exhibit more constructive interactions (e.g., ability to

discuss problems or insecurities), greater feelings of connectedness, and less general conflict

(Li & Chan, 2012). Instead, we would expect individuals in lovebird relationships to be more

securely attached. However, since we did not explicitly measure secure attachment in our study,

more research is needed to confirm this.

On the other hand, the Disconnect subscale was positively associated with both anxious

and avoidant attachment. A meta-analysis by Li and Chan (2012) found that anxious attachment

was strongly associated with the presence of negative relationship processes like general

conflict and destructive interactions, while avoidant attachment was strongly associated with the

absence of positive relationship indicators like connectedness and support behaviors. Items

such as “My partner and I have recurring problems that we can’t get past” reflect destructive

interactions associated with anxious attachment, while items like “I feel like I need space after

we spend a lot of time together” represent the lack of closeness seen characteristic of an

avoidant attachment style. Additionally, the correlation between the Disconnect subscale and

anxious attachment was larger than the correlation with avoidant attachment. Joel et al. (2018)

found that anxious attachment was associated with the endorsement of many reasons for

wanting to both stay and leave one’s relationship (e.g., “We stay together for external reasons

such as marriage vows and children, more than because of our enjoyment of being together”).

Nearly half of their sample endorsed motivation to both stay and leave the relationship,
32
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

highlighting the prevalence of stay/leave decision conflict among people in relationships. These

findings may help explain the stronger association between Disconnect and anxious attachment

observed in our study.

Limitations and Future Directions

There are several limitations of the present study that should be addressed. First, the

cross-sectional nature of this research limits the generalizability of these findings. Self-report

questionnaires are subject to various biases including response bias and social desirability.

Further, since data were only collected at one point in time, the findings may not reflect

relationship quality over time and may be influenced by temporal fluctuations in relationship

quality for a given level of negative affect. Experience sampling techniques (e.g., daily diaries)

may help illustrate changes in ratings of lovebird-ness or committed-ness over time. A

longitudinal study design would be beneficial for understanding how lovebird and committed

relationships are developed and maintained over time. It is also important to note that this study

only captures the experiences of one relationship partner, and there may be discrepancies

between how partners view their relationship. Future research should have both partners

complete the scale. This could highlight potential relationship issues if one partner believes they

are lovebirds, but the other does not. In-laboratory behavior observations may help illustrate

how lovebird couples interact with each other and how the factors identified in the present

research manifest themselves in these interactions.

Another limitation to consider the study sample. The use of an online recruitment

platform such as CloudResearch allowed us to recruit individuals from across the U.S. but

despite this, our sample was still primarily White, female, educated (i.e., bachelor’s degree or

higher), and heterosexual. Future research should take steps to include a more diverse sample

of participants that may capture differences in relationship evaluation across genders,

sexualities, and cultures. In addition, given the use of online recruitment methods, there is

always the possibility that “bots” completed the survey (i.e., automated responses), which can
33
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

impact the quality of the data (Litman et al., 2017). While multiple steps were taken to address

this limitation in the current research (i.e., use of data security measures), future research

should aim to replicate these findings in different populations and use other forms of data

collection to minimize the possibility of automated bot responses.

There are some methodological limitations that should also be mentioned. It is possible

that the results from the CFAs conducted in Studies 2 and 3 may have been underpowered due

to the small sample size. While the sample sizes in this study met previous recommendations

for factor analysis sample sizes (i.e., sample sizes greater than 200), other recommendations

suggest using a ratio of 10+ per item (Knekta et al., 2019; Watkins, 2018). Additionally, because

we excluded individuals with low relationship quality from analyses, the non-normal distribution

of the data could have affected the analyses. Future research should routinely examine the

model fit of these measurements in independent samples and propose modifications as needed

to improve the reliability and validity of these scales. Another methodological limitation that

should be considered is the limited number of measures we used to establish the construct

validity of the Lovebird Scale. For example, to avoid overexerting participants taking the length

survey in Study 3, we only measured anxious and avoidant attachment but not secure

attachment. Though it can be assumed that lovebirds are securely attached, future studies

should also use measures of secure attachment to confirm this. Additionally, future research

should also incorporate more measures of love (e.g., compassionate, passionate) and other

measures relevant to the specific facets of lovebird relationships to further examine the

construct validity of the scale.

Conclusions

Across three studies, we present preliminary evidence for the psychometric properties of

the Lovebird Scale, a novel assessment of relationship quality that aims to capture the ongoing

behaviors, interactions, and cognitions that foster flourishing couple relationships. Previous

scales have largely focused on broad, general assessments that operationalize relationship
34
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

quality as the presence or absence of relationship problems, rather than factors that contribute

to relationship flourishing. The scale advances the science of love by operationalizing the

construct of “optimal” romantic relationships, going beyond broad ratings of relationship

satisfaction to distinguish between “lovebirds” and other types of adult committed relationships.
35
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

References

Abbasi, I. S., & Alghamdi, N. G. (2017). Polarized couples in therapy: Recognizing indifference

as the opposite of love. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 43(1), 40-48.

https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2015.1113596

Barry, R. A., Lawrence, E., & Langer, A. (2008). Conceptualization and assessment of

disengagement in romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 15(3), 297-315.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2008.00200.x

Berinsky, A. J., Margolis, M. F., & Sances, M. W. (2014). Separating the shirkers from the

workers? Making sure respondents pay attention on self-administered surveys.

American Journal of Political Science, 58, 739-753. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12081

Borelli, J. L., Rasmussen, H. F., Burkhart, M. L., & Sbarra, D. A. (2015). Relational savoring in

long-distance relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32(8), 1083-

1108. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0265407514558960

Borelli, J. L., Sbarra, D. A., Snavely, J. E., McMakin, D. L., Coffey, J. K., Ruiz, S. K., Wang, B.

A., & Chung, S. Y. (2014). With or without you: Preliminary evidence that attachment

avoidance predicts nondeployed spouses’ reactions to relationship challenges during

deployment. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 45(6), 478-487.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037780

Borelli, J. L., Smiley, P. A., Kerr, M. L., Hong, K., Hecht, H. K., Blackard, M. B., Falasiri, E.,

Cervantes, B. R., & Bond, D. K. (2020). Relational savoring: An attachment-based

approach to promoting interpersonal flourishing. Psychotherapy, 57(5), 340-351. https://

doi.org/10.1037/pst0000284

Braithwaite, S. R., Delevi, R., & Fincham, F. D. (2010). Romantic relationships and the physical

and mental health of college students. Personal Relationships, 17(1), 1-12.

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01248.x
36
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

Braithwaite, S. R., & Holt-Lunstad, J. (2017). Romantic relationships and mental health. Current

Opinion in Psychology, 13, 120-125.

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.04.001

Bryant, F. B. (2021). Current progress and future directions for theory and research on savoring.

Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 771698. https://doi.org/10.3389%2Ffpsyg.2021.771698

Callaci, M., Péloquin, K., Barry, R. A., & Tremblay, N. (2020). A dyadic analysis of attachment

insecurities and romantic disengagement among couples seeking relationship therapy.

Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 46(3), 399-412.

https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12422

Campbell, L., & Stanton, S. C. (2019). Adult attachment and trust in romantic relationships.

Current Opinion in Psychology, 25, 148-151.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.08.004

Chonody, J. M., Gabb, J., Killian, M., & Dunk-West, P. (2018). Measuring relationship quality in

an international study. Research on Social Work Practice, 28, 920-930.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731516631120

Coan, J. A., Kasle, S., Jackson, A., Schaefer, H. S., & Davidson, R. J. (2013). Mutuality and the

social regulation of neural threat responding. Attachment & Human Development, 15(3),

303-315. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2013.782656

Collins, N. L. (1996). Working models of attachment: Implications for explanation, emotion, and

behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 810-832.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.4.810

Costa-Ramalho, S., Marques-Pinto, A., Ribeiro, M. T., & Pereira, C. R. (2015). Savoring positive

events in couple life: Impacts on relationship quality and dyadic adjustment. Family

Science, 6(1), 170-180. https://doi.org/10.1080/19424620.2015.1082047

Debrot, A., Meuwly, N., Muise, A., Impett, E. A., & Schoebi, D. (2017). More than just sex:

Affection mediates the association between sexual activity and well-being. Personality
37
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(3), 287-299.

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0146167216684124

Debrot, A., Schoebi, D., Perrez, M., & Horn, A. B. (2013). Touch as an interpersonal emotion

regulation process in couples’ daily lives: The mediating role of psychological intimacy.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(10), 1373-1385.

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0146167213497592

Dush, C. M. K., & Amato, P. R. (2005). Consequences of relationship status and quality for

subjective well-being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(5), 607-627.

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407505056438

Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2010). Of memes and marriage: Toward a positive

relationship science. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2, 4-24.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00033.x

Fincham, F. D., & Rogge, R. (2010). Understanding relationship quality: Theoretical challenges

and new tools for assessment. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2, 227-242.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00059.x

Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., & Thomas, G. (2000). The measurement of perceived

relationship quality components: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Personality

and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 340-354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200265007

Fowers, B. J., Laurenceau, J.-P., Penfield, R. D., Cohen, L. M., Lang, S. F., Owenz, M. B., &

Pasipanodya, E. (2016). Enhancing relationship quality measurement: The development

of the relationship flourishing scale. Journal of Family Psychology, 30, 997-1007. https://

doi.org/10.1037/fam0000263

Fowers, B. J., & Owenz, M. B. (2010). A eudaimonic theory of marital quality. Journal of Family

Theory & Review, 2(4), 334-352. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-

2589.2010.00065.x
38
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

Franiuk, R., Cohen, D., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2002). Implicit theories of relationships:

Implications for relationship satisfaction and longevity. Personal Relationships, 9(4), 345-

367. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6811.09401

Galovan, A. M., Carroll, J. S., Schramm, D. G., Leonhardt, N. D., Zuluaga, J., McKenadel, S. E.

M., & Oleksuik, M. R. (2021). Satisfaction or connectivity?: Implications from the strong

relationality model of flourishing couple relationships. Journal of Marital and Family

Therapy, 48(3), 883-907. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12559

Galovan, A. M., & Schramm, D. G. (2018). Strong relationality and ethical responsiveness: A

framework and conceptual model for family science. Journal of Family Theory & Review,

10(1), 199-218. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12238

Genero, N. P., Miller, J. B., Surrey, J., & Baldwin, L. M. (1992). Measuring perceived mutuality

in close relationships: Validation of the mutual psychological development questionnaire.

Journal of Family Psychology, 6, 36-48. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.6.1.36

Gottman, J. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes and

marital outcomes. Psychology Press.

Gottman, J., & Gottman, J. (2017). The natural principles of love. Journal of Family Theory &

Review, 9(1), 7-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12182

Hair, J. F., Black, B., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data

analysis: A global perspective (7th ed.). Pearson Education.

Harasymchuk, C., & Fehr, B. (2012). Development of a prototype-based measure of relational

boredom. Personal Relationships, 19(1), 162-181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-

6811.2011.01346.x

Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and

the Family, 50, 93. https://doi.org/10.2307/352430

Hesse, C., & Mikkelson, A. C. (2017). Affection deprivation in romantic relationships.

Comunication Quarterly, 65(1), 20-38. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2016.1176942

39
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

Holt-Lunstad, J., Birmingham, W., & Jones, B. Q. (2008). Is there something unique about

marriage? The relative impact of marital status, relationship quality, and network social

support on ambulatory blood pressure and mental health. Annals of Behavioral

Medicine, 35(2), 239-244. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-008-9018-y

Holt-Lunstad, J., & Uchino, B. N. (2019). Social ambivalence and disease (sad): A theoretical

model aimed at understanding the health implications of ambivalent relationships.

Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(6), 941-966.

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1745691619861392

Hu, L.-t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:

Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

Jakubiak, B. K., & Feeney, B. C. (2016). A sense of security: Touch promotes state attachment

security. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(7), 745-753.

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1948550616646427

Joel, S., MacDonald, G., & Page-Gould, E. (2018). Wanting to stay and wanting to go:

Unpacking the content and structure of relationship stay/leave decision processes.

Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(6), 631-644.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617722834

Keyes, C. L. M. (2002). The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life.

Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 43(2), 207-222.

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/3090197

Kito, M. (2016). Shared and unique prototype features of relationship quality concepts. Personal

Relationships, 23(4), 759-786. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12156

Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). The

Guilford Press.
40
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

Knekta, E., Runyon, C., & Eddy, S. (2019). One size doesn't fit all: Using factor analysis to

gather validity evidence when using surveys in your research. CBE Life Sciences

Education, 18, rm1. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-04-0064

Lenger, K. A., & Gordon, C. L. (2019). To have and to savor: Examining associations between

savoring and relationship satisfaction. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and

Practice, 8(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1037/cfp0000111

Li, T., & Chan, D. K. S. (2012). How anxious and avoidant attachment affect romantic

relationship quality differently: A meta-analytic review. European Journal of Social

Psychology, 42, 406-419. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1842

Litman, L., Robinson, J., & Abberbock, T. (2017). Turkprime.Com: A versatile crowdsourcing

data acquisition platform for the behavioral sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 49,

433-442. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0727-z

Merz, E. L., Malcarne, V. L., Roesch, S. C., Ko, C. M., Emerson, M., Roma, V. G., & Sadler, G.

R. (2013). Psychometric properties of positive and negative affect schedule (panas)

original and short forms in an african american community sample. Journal of Affective

Disorders, 151, 942-949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2013.08.011

Miller, P. J. E., & Rempel, J. K. (2004). Trust and partner-enhancing attributions in close

relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(6), 695-705. https://doi.org/

10.1177/0146167203262803

Muise, A., Maxwell, J. A., & Impett, E. A. (2018). What theories and methods from relationship

research can contribute to sex research. The Journal of Sex Research, 55(4-5), 540-

562. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2017.1421608

Rauers, A., & Riediger, M. (2022). Ease of mind or ties that bind? Costs and benefits of

disclosing daily hassles in partnerships. Social Psychological and Personality Science,

19485506221112252.
41
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

Rempel, J. K., Ross, M., & Holmes, J. G. (2001). Trust and communicated attributions in close

relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1), 57-64. https://doi.org/

10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.57

Rimé, B., Bouchat, P., Paquot, L., & Giglio, L. (2020). Intrapersonal, interpersonal, and social

sharing outcomes of the social sharing of emotion. Current Opinion in Psychology, 31,

127-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.08.024

Roberson, P. N. E., Norona, J. C., Lenger, K. A., & Olmstead, S. B. (2018). How do relationship

stability and quality affect wellbeing?: Romantic relationship trajectories, depressive

symptoms, and life satisfaction across 30 years. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27,

2171-2184. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-018-1052-1

Robles, T. F., Slatcher, R. B., Trombello, J. M., & McGinn, M. M. (2014). Marital quality and

health: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 140(1), 140-187.

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031859

Ross, K. M., Rook, K., Winczewski, L., Collins, N., & Schetter, C. D. (2019). Close relationships

and health: The interactive effect of positive and negative aspects. Social and

Personality Psychology Compass, 13(6), e12468. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12468

Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An r package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical

Software, 48(2), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02

Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of

marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15.

https://doi.org/10.2307/350547

Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93(2), 119-135.

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.119

Strachman, A., & Gable, S. L. (2006). Approach and avoidance relationship commitment.

Motivation and Emotion, 30, 117-126. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-

9026-9
42
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

Team, P. (2022). Rstudio: Integrated development environment for r. In Posit Software, PBC.

http://www.posit.co/

Team, R. C. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. In R Foundation

for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/

Vaughn, M., & Baier, M. E. M. (1999). Reliability and validity of the relationship assessment

scale. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 27, 137-147.

https://doi.org/10.1080/019261899262023

Wagner, S. A., Mattson, R. E., Davila, J., Johnson, M. D., & Cameron, N. M. (2020). Touch me

just enough: The intersection of adult attachment, intimate touch, and marital

satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37(6), 1945-1967.

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0265407520910791

Watkins, M. W. (2018). Exploratory factor analysis: A guide to best practice. Journal of Black

Psychology, 44, 219-246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798418771807

Weigel, D. J. (2010). Mutuality of commitment in romantic relationships: Exploring a dyadic

model. Personal Relationships, 17(4), 495-513. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-

6811.2010.01303.x

Wickham, R. E. (2013). Perceived authenticity in romantic partners. Journal of Experimental

Social Psychology, 49(5), 878-887.

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.04.001

Wood, N. D., Fife, S. T., Parnell, K. J., & Ross, D. B. (2022). Answering the ethical call of the

other: A test of the strong relationality model of relationship flourishing. Journal of Marital

and Family Therapy, 49(1), 186-204. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12614

Yoo, H., Bartle-Haring, S., Day, R. D., & Gangamma, R. (2014). Couple communication,

emotional and sexual intimacy, and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Sex & Marital

Therapy, 40(4), 275-293. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2012.751072

43
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

Zoppolat, G., Faure, R., Alonso-Ferres, M., & Righetti, F. (2022). Mixed and conflicted: The role

of ambivalence in romantic relationships in light of attractive alternatives. Emotion, 22(1),

81-99. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001055
44
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

Appendix

The Lovebird Scale

Instructions: You have been asked to complete this questionnaire because you are currently

involved in a committed long-term romantic relationship. Please answer the following questions

about your relationship with your partner using the scale below.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Strongly
disagree somewhat agree nor somewhat agree
disagree

1. I trust my partner completely and I can tell my partner anything. (m)

2. When I hear certain songs, I think of how much I love my partner. (r)

3. I am easily attracted to others when I am away from home. (d)

4. My partner never intentionally insults me, puts me down, or makes me feel bad. (m)

5. Our sex life is deeply satisfying. (r)

6. We stay together for external reasons such as marriage vows and children, more than

because of our enjoyment of being together. (d)

7. We are very kind to each other. (m)

8. Sometimes when I’m alone I find myself thinking about how much I love my partner. (r)

9. I often think about former lovers. (d)

10. My partner accepts every part of me, even the things I dislike about myself. (m)

11. The more time we spend together the more I enjoy my partner’s company. (r)

12. Although I love my partner, I would not say that I am currently “in love”. (d)

13. My partner and I respect each other’s opinions, even when we don’t agree with each

other. (m)

14. I find my partner extremely physically attractive. (r)

15. I feel like I need space after we spend a lot of time together. (d)
45
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

16. My partner and I fit well together. (m)

17. I often find myself thinking about special things I can do to make my partner happy. (r)

18. I am more myself when I am alone than when I am with my partner. (d)

19. I support my partner in their goals and aspirations, and they do the same for me. (m)

20. Touching is natural and fundamental to our relationship. (r)

21. There are things about my partner that I wish I could change. (d)

22. I can talk to my partner about anything, even if it is a difficult conversation. (m)

23. We are each other’s best friend. (r)

24. My partner and I have recurring problems that we can’t get past. (d)

25. I don’t have to sacrifice aspects of myself to keep my partner happy. (m)

26. My partner and I go through life savoring moments together. (m)

Mutuality = (Items 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 25, 26)/10

Romance = (Items 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 23)/8

Disconnect = (Items 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24)/8

Composite lovebird score: Reverse score items on the Disconnect subscale and then take the

average of all items.

46
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

Table 1

Sample Characteristics for Studies 1-3

Variable Study 1 Study 2 Study 3

N % N % N %
Sex
Female 327 60.6 144 67.0 168 69.7
Male 213 39.4 69 32.1 72 29.9
Ethnicity
White 432 80.0 182 84.7 200 83.0
Black 44 8.1 9 4.2 16 6.6
Asian 22 4.1 8 3.7 12 5.0
Hispanic 19 3.5 8 3.7 10 4.1
Other 23 4.3 8 3.7 3 1.2
Education
High school diploma or less 63 11.7 21 10.2 30 12.4
Some college 115 21.3 34 15.8 49 20.3
Associates degree 65 12.0 30 14.0 21 8.7
Bachelor’s degree 180 33.3 84 39.1 91 37.8
Graduate degree 117 21.6 45 20.9 50 20.7
Sexual Orientation
Heterosexual 459 85.0 185 86.0 209 86.7
Gay or Lesbian 15 2.8 3 1.4 7 2.9
Bisexual 52 9.6 22 10.2 16 6.6
Other 14 2.6 5 2.4 9 3.7
Relationship Status
Dating 99 18.3 42 19.5 35 14.5
Engaged 58 10.7 28 13.0 32 13.3
Married 365 67.6 132 61.4 168 69.7
Other 18 3.3 13 6.0 6 2.5
Cohabitating
Yes 493 91.3 197 91.6 224 92.9
No 47 8.7 18 8.4 17 7.1
Note. Total N = 996 (Study 1 n = 540; Study 2 n = 215; Study 3 n = 241). On average,

participants in Studies 1-3 were 39.9(13.2), 38.7(11.6), and 39.1(10.2) years old, respectively.

Average length of participants’ current relationship in Studies 1-3 was 11.4(10.8), 10.5(12.7),

and 11.7(11.2) years, respectively.

47
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

Table 2

Descriptive Statistics for Study 1 Variables

Variable M SD Range Cronbach’s alpha

LB-Mutuality 5.50 0.9 5.15 0.93
LB-Romance 5.48 1.0 4.80 0.89
LB-Disconnect 2.93 1.3 6.00 0.86
RAS 28.9 5.5 23.0 0.90
MPDQ-Self 4.77 0.7 3.60 0.87
MPDQ-Partner 4.51 0.9 4.44 0.88
Lovebird prototype 75.8 24.2 100.0 --
Committed prototype 46.3 33.2 100.0 --
Note. N = 540. LB = Lovebird Scale; RAS = Relationship Assessment Scale; MPDQ = Mutual

Psychological Development Questionnaire.

48
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

Table 3

Results from Exploratory Factor Analysis in Study 1

Item Factor Loadings

LB-M LB-R LB-D
6. I trust my partner completely and I can tell my partner 0.70
anything.
10. My partner never intentionally insults me, puts me down, 0.82
or makes me feel bad.
12. My partner and I have recurring problems that we can’t -0.55 0.37
get past.
13. We are each other’s best friend. 0.57 0.32
33. We are very kind to each other. 0.78
38. My partner accepts every part of me, even the things I 0.69
dislike about myself.
41. My partner and I respect each other’s opinions, even 0.73
when we don’t agree with each other.
44. My partner and I fit well together. 0.61 0.25
45. I support my partner in their goals and aspirations, and 0.58
they do the same for me.
47. I can talk to my partner about anything, even if it is a 0.86
difficult conversation.
48. I don’t have to sacrifice aspects of myself to keep my 0.76
partner happy.
1. When I hear certain songs, I think of how much I love my 0.64
partner.
4. All of life’s ups and downs seem pretty insignificant 0.54
compared to the love that we share.
5. Our sex life is deeply satisfying. 0.69
17. Sometimes when I’m alone I find myself thinking about 0.70
how much I love my partner.
18. The more time we spend together the more I enjoy my 0.27 0.55
partner’s company.
19. We share a seamless continuum of compassionate and 0.76
erotic love.
22. I find my partner extremely physically attractive. -0.21 0.70
24. I often find myself thinking about special things I can do 0.68
to make my partner happy.
30. Touching is natural and fundamental to our relationship. 0.53
37. My partner and I go through life savoring moments 0.31 0.52
together.
20. I am easily attracted to others when I am away from 0.77
home.
27. When I see lovey-dovey couples I think they are 0.54
unrealistic or out of touch.
31. We stay together for external reasons such as marriage -0.23 0.54
vows and children, more than because of our enjoyment of
being together.
32. I often think about former lovers. 0.87
49
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

36. Although I love my partner, I would not say that I am 0.66

currently “in love”.
46. I feel like I need space after we spend a lot of time 0.60
together.
14. My partner and I know how to make each other laugh, 0.46 0.29
even on our bad days.
26. We don’t have to do anything in particular to thoroughly 0.44
enjoy being together.
34. I am more myself when I am alone than when I am with -0.27 0.49
my partner.
49. There are things about my partner that I wish I could -0.25 0.40
change
Note. N = 540. LB-M = Lovebird Scale – Mutuality subscale; LB-R = Lovebird Scale – Romance

subscale; LB-D = Lovebird Scale – Disconnect subscale. Factor loadings were estimated using

principal axis factoring with a Promax rotation. Factor loadings less the 0.20 were omitted from

the table for clarity purposes.

50
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

Table 4

Zero Order Correlations Among Study 1 Variables

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. LB-M --
2. LB-R .72 --
3. LB-D -.59 -.56 --
4. RAS .76 .69 -.71 --
5. MPDQ-S .57 .57 -.69 .64 --
6. MPDQ-P .74 .60 -.65 .72 .69 --
7. LB-P .72 .68 -.57 .81 .52 .65 --
8. COM-P -.28 -.35 .48 -.30 -.31 -.32 -.26
Note. N = 540. All correlations were statistically significant at the p < .001 level. LB-M =

Lovebird Scale – Mutuality subscale; LB-R = Lovebird Scale – Romance subscale; LB-D =

Lovebird Scale – Disconnect subscale; RAS = Relationship Assessment Scale; MPDQ-S =

Mutual Psychological Development Questionnaire – Self subscale; MPDQ-P = Mutual

Psychological Development Questionnaire – Partner subscale; LB-P = Lovebird relationship

prototype; COM-P = Committed relationship prototype.

51
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

Table 5

Descriptive Statistics for Study 2 Variables

Variable M SD Range Cronbach’s alpha

LB-Mutuality 5.68 1.1 4.80 0.92
LB-Romance 5.71 0.9 4.88 0.87
LB-Disconnect 2.85 1.3 6.00 0.87
LB-Composite 5.74 1.0 4.96 0.95
RAS 29.3 5.2 22.0 0.90
MPDQ-Self 4.73 0.7 3.00 0.86
MPDQ-Partner 4.53 0.9 4.00 0.89
PRQC-Relationship Satisfaction 5.91 1.2 5.00 0.96
PRQC-Commitment 6.54 0.9 5.00 0.95
PRQC-Intimacy 5.80 1.3 6.00 0.89
PRQC-Trust 6.20 1.1 5.00 0.89
PRQC-Passion 4.74 1.7 6.00 0.93
PRQC-Love 6.32 1.1 5.00 0.92
RQS 37.0 6.6 29.0 0.92
Lovebird prototype 77.3 26.8 100.0 --
Committed prototype 43.6 37.9 100.0 --
Note. N = 215. LB = Lovebird Scale; RAS = Relationship Assessment Scale; MPDQ = Mutual

Psychological Development Questionnaire; PRQC = Perceived Relationship Quality

Components Inventory; RQS = Relationship Quality Scale.

52
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

Table 6

Model Fit Statistics from Confirmatory Factor Analyses in Study 2

Model χ2 df χ2/df CFI SRMR RMSEA 95% CI p

EFA 875.9 431 2.03 .857 .062 .069 [.063, .075] <.001
One-factor 1002.3 434 2.31 .811 .065 .078 [.072, .084] <.001
Orthogonal 1223.4 434 2.82 .737 .316 .092 [.087, .097] <.001
Higher order 485.6 296 1.64 .925 .055 .055 [.047, .062] .162
Note. Model fit statistics for the CFA model containing only the first-order factors were omitted

because they were equivalent to those produced by the higher order model. EFA = exploratory

factor analysis; CFI = comparative fit index; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual;

RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.

53
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

Table 7

Zero Order Correlations Among Study 2 Variables

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1. LB-M --
2. LB-R .77 --
3. LB-D -.71 -.69 --
4. LB .93 .88 -.89 --
5. RAS .83 .67 -.75 .84 --
6. MPDQ-S .69 .63 -.68 .75 .63 --
7. MPDQ-P .79 .64 -.69 .79 .73 .76 --
8. PRQC-RS .84 .72 -.71 .84 .89 .59 .72 --
9. PRQC-C .60 .62 -.58 .66 .62 .46 .45 .64 --
10. PRQC-I .74 .79 -.67 .80 .79 .60 .65 .82 .55 --
11. PRQC-T .74 .55 -.56 .69 .73 .49 .59 .74 .49 .59 --
12. PRQC-P .46 .67 -.45 .56 .51 .44 .47 .58 .35 .72 .36 --
13. PRQC-L .73 .81 -.66 .80 .69 .59 .59 .72 .75 .74 .57 .52 --
14. RQS .86 .79 -.78 .90 .87 .67 .74 .87 .69 .79 .72 .54 .80 --
15. LB-P .75 .73 -.68 .79 .77 .60 .62 .77 .56 .74 .54 .54 .75 .79 --
16. COM-P -.41 -.44 .60 -.54 -.46 -.44 -.45 -.45 -.27 -.45 -.32 -.42 -.40 -.49 -.40
Note. N = 215. All correlations were statistically significant at the p < .001 level. LB-M = Lovebird Scale – Mutuality subscale; LB-R =

Lovebird Scale – Romance subscale; LB-D = Lovebird Scale – Disconnect subscale; LB = Lovebird Scale – composite score; RAS =

Relationship Assessment Scale; MPDQ-S = Mutual Psychological Development Questionnaire – Self subscale; MPDQ-P = Mutual

Psychological Development Questionnaire – Partner subscale; PRQC-RS = Perceived Relationship Quality Components Inventory –

Relationship Satisfaction subscale; PRQC-C= Perceived Relationship Quality Components Inventory – Commitment subscale;

PRQC-I = Perceived Relationship Quality Components Inventory – Intimacy subscale; PRQC-T = Perceived Relationship Quality

Components Inventory – Trust subscale; PRQC-P= Perceived Relationship Quality Components Inventory – Passion subscale;
54
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

PRQC-L = Perceived Relationship Quality Components Inventory – Love subscale; RQS = Relationship Quality Scale; LB-P =

Lovebird relationship prototype; COM-P = Committed relationship prototype.

55
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

Table 8

Descriptive Statistics for Study 3 Variables

Variable M SD Range Cronbach’s alpha

LB-Mutuality 5.75 1.0 4.00 0.92
LB-Romance 5.73 0.9 3.62 0.85
LB-Disconnect 2.83 1.2 5.12 0.86
LB-Composite 5.78 1.0 4.00 0.94
RAS 29.6 5.2 23.0 0.91
MPDQ-Self 4.72 0.7 3.45 0.86
MPDQ-Partner 4.55 0.8 3.78 0.88
DAS-Consensus 45.5 13.2 65.0 0.95
DAS-Affectionate Expression 8.28 2.8 12.0 0.68
DAS-Satisfaction 39.6 6.6 50.0 0.89
DAS-Cohesion 18.0 4.0 25.0 0.83
DAS Total 111.3 22.0 100.0 0.95
AAS-Anxious 2.76 1.0 4.00 0.88
AAS-Avoidant 2.72 0.8 3.92 0.90
PANAS-Positive 33.1 7.9 38.0 0.92
PANAS-Negative 17.9 7.6 35.0 0.93
Lovebird prototype 77.9 24.0 100.0 --
Committed prototype 47.9 39.4 100.0 --
Note. N = 241. LB = Lovebird Scale; RAS = Relationship Assessment Scale; MPDQ = Mutual

Psychological Development Questionnaire; DAS = Dyadic Adjustment Scale; AAS = Adult

Attachment Scale; PANAS = Positive and Negative Affect Schedule.

56
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

Table 9

Zero Order Correlations Among Study 3 Variables

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
1. LB-M --
2. LB-R .72*** --
3. LB-D -.70*** -.66*** --
4. LB .92*** .86*** -.89*** --
5. RAS .82*** .70*** -.78*** .86*** --
6. MPDQ-S .60*** .65*** -.61*** .69*** .58*** --
7. MPDQ-P .73*** .64*** -.70*** .78*** .67*** .74*** --
8. DAS-CN .47*** .41*** -.46*** .50*** .42*** .39*** .43*** --
9. DAS-AE .51*** .53*** -.46*** .56*** .48*** .46*** .53*** .73*** --
10. DAS-S .81*** .68*** -.79*** .86*** .89*** .64*** .73*** .47*** .51*** --
11. DAS-CH .61*** .59*** -.56*** .66*** .60*** .54*** .64*** .38*** .41*** .63*** --
12. DAS .70*** .63*** -.67*** .75*** .69*** .59*** .67*** .91*** .80*** .77*** .66*** --
13. AAS-ANX -.23** -.13* .34*** -.28*** -.28*** -.35*** -.35*** -.18** -.20** -.34*** -.31*** -.29*** --
14. AAS-AVD -.18** -.17** .17** -.20** -.18** -.34*** -.27*** -.16* -.18** -.22*** -.27*** -.24*** .46*** --
15. PANAS-P .20** .34*** -.18** .25*** .21*** .38*** .26*** .11 .18** .22*** .25*** .20** -.36*** -.44*** --
16. PANAS-N -.08 -.05 .21** -.14* -.13 -.25*** -.20** -.20** -.19** -.22*** -.14* -.23*** .45*** .46*** -.31*** --
17. LB-P .76*** .74*** -.71*** .79*** .84*** .48*** .61*** .41*** .47*** .81*** .51*** .64*** -.32*** -.21*** .23*** -.11 --
18. COM-P -.24*** -.35*** .42*** -.37*** -.32*** -.30*** -.28*** -.24*** -.24*** -.32*** -.28*** -.32*** .18** -.06 -.14* .05 -.32***
Note. N = 241. LB-M = Lovebird Scale – Mutuality subscale; LB-R = Lovebird Scale – Romance subscale; LB-D = Lovebird Scale –

Disconnect subscale; LB = Lovebird Scale – composite score; RAS = Relationship Assessment Scale; MPDQ-S = Mutual

Psychological Development Questionnaire – Self subscale; MPDQ-P = Mutual Psychological Development Questionnaire – Partner

subscale; DAS-CN = Dyadic Adjustment Scale – Consensus subscale; DAS-AE = Dyadic Adjustment Scale – Affectionate

Expression subscale; DAS-S = Dyadic Adjustment Scale – Satisfaction subscale; DAS-CH = Dyadic Adjustment Scale – Cohesion

subscale; DAS = Dyadic Adjustment Scale – Total; AAS-ANX = Adult Attachment Scale – Anxious subscale; AAS-AVD = Adult

Attachment Scale – Avoidant subscale; PANAS-P = Positive and Negative Affect Schedule – Positive subscale; PANAS-N = Positive

and Negative Affect Schedule – Negative subscale; LB-P = Lovebird relationship prototype; COM-P = Committed relationship

prototype.
57
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

*p < .05; ** p< .01; ***p < .001

58
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

Table 10

Regressing PANAS Positive and Negative on Composite Lovebird Scores, RAS, and DAS-32

Variable β SE 95% CI p
PANAS Positive
Lovebird Scale – Composite score 2.861 1.043 [0.806, 4.917] .007
RAS -0.109 0.186 [-0.474, 0.257] .558
PANAS Negative
Lovebird Scale – Composite score -0.907 1.059 [-2.994, 1.179] .392
RAS -0.039 0.190 [-0.413, 0.334] .835

PANAS Positive
Lovebird Scale – Composite score 2.278 0.808 [0.686, 3.870] .005
DAS 0.003 0.034 [-0.064, 0.070] .937
PANAS Negative
Lovebird Scale – Composite score 0.189 0.780 [-1.349, 1.727] .809
DAS -0.092 0.033 [-0.156, -0.027] .006
Note. N = 241. Each set of models also controlled for sex (female), relationship status (married),

and age. RAS = Relationship Assessment Scale; DAS = Dyadic Adjustment Scale – Total;

PANAS = Positive and Negative Affect Schedule.

59
THE LOVEBIRD SCALE

Figure 1

Lovebird Scale – Higher Order Model Structure