Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wbk2r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-10T14:32:58.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is Love Triarchic or Monarchical-Hierarchical? A Proposal of a General Factor of Love and a Scale to Measure it

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2020

M. D. Merino  and
J. Privado Open the ORCID record for J. Privado [Opens in a new window]
M. D. Merino
Affiliation:
Universidad Complutense (Spain)
J. Privado*
Affiliation:
Universidad Complutense (Spain)
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jesús Privado. Departamento de Psicobiología y Metodología en Ciencias de Comportamiento de la Universidad Complutense. Campus de Somosaguas, Pozuelo de Alarcón, Madrid (Spain). E-mail: jesus.privado@pdi.ucm.es
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One of the most widely used measures for evaluating love is the Triangular Love Scale (TLS) by Sternberg (1986) based on his Triarchic theory according to which, love is comprised of three reasonably independent components (intimacy, passion and commitment). However, different investigations contradict this idea. The purpose of the present investigation is to verify whether the structure of love is triarchic, with three independent factors, or monarchical-hierarchical, with a first level where the three components of love would be located, and a second higher level where they would be grouped together in a general factor of love. In order to do this, in addition to the use of the TLS scale, another equivalent called Quality Partner Relationship Scale (QPRS) was developed to test the stability of the results found, and to propose a measure of love based on the Sternberg components, but simpler and without problems of overlap between items. To test this question, we used a sample of 610 people matched by sex, age and social class, all of whom were partnered at the time of the evaluation. Confirmatory Factor Analyses were used to test the research objective, something that had not been done so far, and it was found that the structure that best fitted the data was monarchical-hierarchical in the case of the TLS as well as in the one of the QPRS. We can then state that love is structured around a general factor in which the three components are grouped: Intimacy, passion and commitment.

Keywords

love structureQuality Partner Relationship ScaleTriangular Love Scale
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 23 , 2020 , e10
Copyright
© Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abad, F. J., Olea, J., Ponsoda, V., & García, C. (2011). Medición en ciencias sociales y de la salud[Measurement in social and health sciences]. Madrid, Spain: Síntesis.Google Scholar
Acevedo, B. P., & Aron, A. (2009). Does a long-term relationship kill romantic love? Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 59–65. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0014226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acker, M., & Davis, M. H. (1992). Intimacy, passion and commitment in adult romantic relationships: A test of the triangular theory of love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9(1), 21–50. http://doi.org/10.1177/0265407592091002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). Amos 7.0 User’s Guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS.Google Scholar
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS basic concepts, applications, and programming. New Jersey, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cassepp-Borges, V., & Martins Teodoro, M. L. (2009). Versión reducida de la escala triangular del amor: características del sentimiento en Brasil [Reduced version of triangular love scale: Feeling’s characteristics in Brazil]. Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 43(1), 30–38.Google Scholar
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dietch, J. (1978). Love, sex roles, and psychological health. Journal of Personality Assessment, 42, 626–634. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4206_12CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fehr, B. (1994). Prototype based assessment of laypeople’s views of love. Personal Relationships, 1(4), 309–331. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1994.tb00068.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, J. M. (2011). Measuring love in romantic relationships: A meta-analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28(6), 748–771. http://doi.org/10.1177/0265407510389126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, J. M., & Christiansen, K. (2009). The reliability of romantic love: A reliability generalization meta‐analysis. Personal Relationships, 16(1), 49–66. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2009.01209.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gouveia, V. V., da Fonseca, P. N., Cavalcanti, J. P. N., Diniz, P. K. d. C., & Dória, L. C. (2009). Versão abreviada da Escala Triangular do Amor: Evidências de validade fatorial e consistência interna [Brief version of the Triangular Love Scale: Evidences of factor validity and reliability]. Estudos de Psicologia, 14(1), 31–39. http://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-294X2009000100005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis (6th Ed.). New Jersey, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1986). Measuring passionate love in intimate relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 9(4), 383–410. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-1971(86)80043-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. (1986). A theory and method of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(2), 392–402. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (1989). Research on love: Does it measure up? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(5), 784–794. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.5.784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (2003). Romantic love: Measuring Cupid’s arrow. In Lopez, S. J. & Snyder, C. R. (Eds.), Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and measures (pp. 235–250). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (1982). Causal analysis: Models, assumptions and data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: user’s guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
Kim, J., & Hatfield, E. (2004). Love types and subjective well-being: A cross cultural study. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 32, 173–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J. A. (1973). The colours of love: An exporation of the ways of loving. Toronto, Canada: New Press.Google Scholar
Lee, J. A. (1977). A typology of styles of loving. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3(2), 173–182. http://doi.org/10.1177/014616727700300204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemieux, R., & Hale, J. L. (2000). Intimacy, passion and commitment among married individuals: Further testing of the Triangular Theory of Love. Psychological Reports, 87, 941–948. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.2000.87.3.941CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Masuda, M. (2003). Meta-analyses of love scales: Do various love scales measure the same psychological construct? Japanese Psychological Research, 45, 25–37. http://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5884.00030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merino, M.-D., & Privado, J. (2015). Positive Psychological Functioning. Evidences for a new construct. Anales de Psicología, 31, 45–54. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.31.1.171081Google Scholar
Overbeek, T., Ha, T., Scholte, R., de Kemp, R., & Engels, R. C. M. E. (2007). Brief report: Intimacy, passion, and commitment in romantic relationships—Validation of a ‘triangular love scale’ for adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 30, 523–528. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.12.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(2), 265–273. http://doi.org/10.1037/h0029841CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sandín, B., Chorot, P., Lostao, L., Joiner, T. E., Santed, M. A., & Valiente, R. M. (1999). Escalas PANAS de afecto positivo y negativo: Validación factorial y convergencia transcultural [The PANAS Scales of Positive and Negative Affect: Factor Analytic Validation and Cross-cultural Convergence]. Psicothema, 11, 37–51.Google Scholar
Schumm, W. R., Nichols, C. W., Schectman, K. L., & Grigsby, C. C. (1983). Characteristics of responses to the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale by a sample of 84 married mothers. Psychological Reports, 53(2), 567–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173–180. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93, 119–135. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (1988). El triángulo del amor: Intimidad, pasión y compromiso[The triangle of love: Intimacy, passion, commitmet]. Mexico, Mexico DF: Paidós.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Construct validation of a triangular love scale. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 313–335. http://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199705)27:3%3C313::AID-EJSP824%3E3.0.CO;2-43.0.CO;2-4>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, R. J., & Brown, R. L. (2010). Social support and mental health. In Scheid, T. L. & Brown, T. N. (Eds.), A handbook for the study of mental health: Social contexts, theories, and systems (pp. 200–212). New York, NY: Cambridge University.Google Scholar
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANNAS scales. Journal Personality Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with non-normal variables. In Hoyle, R. H. (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications (pp. 56–75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Yela, C. (1996). Componentes básicos del amor: Algunas matizaciones al modelo de Sternberg [Basic components of love: Some variations on Sternberg’s model]. Revista de Psicología Social, 11, 185–201. http://doi.org/10.1174/02134749660569341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yela, C. (1997). Curso temporal de los componentes básicos del amor a lo largo de la relación de pareja [Temporal course of basic components of love along the couple relationship]. Psicothema, 9(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
Yela, C. (2006). The evaluation of love. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 22(1), 21–27. http://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.22.1.21CrossRefGoogle Scholar