By: Ian McKay
The concept of love carries many definitions. For example, Cacioppo et al., (2012) define love as “an emotional state involving chemical, cognitive, rewarding and goal-directed behavioral components” (Cacioppo et al., 2012). Other theorists such as Aron and Aron define love as “a constellation of behaviors, cognitions, and emotions associated with a desire to enter or maintain a close relationship with a specific other person” (1991). Though definitions of love very greatly by many well-known theorists, each definition is likely to contain empirically derived elements shown to embody society’s understanding of love (e.g., cognitions, emotions, physiology, neurology, and innate drives). Because theorists when researching such a simple, yet complex phenomenon place differing degrees of emphasis on its various ingredients, efforts to create a single definition of love have been unsuccessful.
Aside from failed efforts to create a single definition, debates have also centered around how love should be categorized. For example, love has been categorized as an emotion (e.g., Buck, 1999; Sabiki & Silver 2005), a myth present in all cultures (e.g., Lamy, 2015; and Jankowiak & Fischer, 1992), a hidden drive only there to satisfy unconscious needs (e.g., Brown 2012; and Aron, Aron & Norman 2001), a physical addiction involving a persistent preoccupation with one person (e.g., Edwards & Self, 2006), and even an evolved behavior geared at keeping parents together for the time necessary to raise offspring (Fisher, 1992; and Tomlinson, Aron, and Hatfeild, 2018). Though each category differs vastly from the other, it’s possible that love has a unique place in each of the proposed categories.
Researchers have also proposed several different theories of love to explain how it forms and endures. Theories including Zick Rubin’s theory of liking and loving (1970), Robert Sternberg’s triangular theory of love (1986), and Susan and Clyde Hendrick’s love styles theory (1986) have continued to dominate the literature, while others have dominated popular culture (e.g., Chapman’s love languages (1995)). Additionally, when examining theories of love, it is important to explore whether they are supported by science. For example, Chapman’s (1995) love languages model receives excessive attention in the media, however, it has received very little empirical support (Bunt & Hazelwood. 2017). Though no single theory exists without faults, the love styles theory provides the most comprehensive description of different attitudes in romantic relationships.
The ancient Greeks described several types of love. Following both the Greeks and sociologist John Alan Lee (1973), Susan and Clyde Hendrick suggested that there are six types of interpersonal love (1986). The first style, termed Eros, is typically experienced as a romantic, fairytale-type love. People who experience love in the way tend to be emotionally and physically close to their romantic partners and tend to idealize love. Ludos, the second style, occurs when people tend to experience love as a game to be played with deception and manipulation. People who experience love in this way tend to have difficulty with commitment and may be emotionally distant. The third, Storge, tends to characterize those who are stable and committed in their relationships. They value companionship, psychological closeness, and trust, experiencing love as a gradual and slow process. The fourth, Agape, describes those who experience love as caregiving. This is largely a selfless and unconditional love. The fifth, Mania, refers to an obsessive love style. These individuals tend to be emotionally dependent and need consistent reassurance in a relationship. The sixth, Pragma, refers to a practical approach to love. For these individuals, love is based on common sense and reason (Hendrick and Hendrick, 1986).
When examining this model, it is important to acknowledge where improvements can be made to create a universally accepted model of love. For instance, the theory does not explain how love styles are related to what individuals would do or say to initiate, maintain, and develop their romantic relationships. The model also does not provide evidence regarding the types of individuals with whom certain love styles desire to start romantic and or other types of relationships (e.g., attachment, companionate, and unconditional). Understanding these important relations may help to better match individuals with one another without causing strain or wasted time in a relationship. Furthermore, as science’s understanding of love is moving towards a more biological framework, the model would also benefit from incorporating the influence of physiology (e.g., arousal) and neuroanatomy (e.g., brain structures) on each of the six love styles.
In conclusion, love is an extremely complex concept. Researchers have struggled to create not only a unified framework for which to explain love, but a definition for which to help elucidate its important mechanisms. Of the numerous theories that exist to explain love, Hendrick and Hendrick’s model of love styles provides the most complete description of interpersonal relationships. When examining such a complex idea, future efforts should be placed upon expanding existing models in ways that match current scientific progress.
- Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1991). Love and sexuality. In K. McKinney & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Sexuality in close relationships (pp. 25-48). Hillsdale, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
- Bunt, Selena & Hazelwood, Zoe. (2017). Walking the walk, talking the talk: Love languages, self-regulation, and relationship satisfaction: Love languages, self-regulation, and satisfaction. Personal Relationships. 24. 10.1111/pere.12182.
- Brown, J. W. (2012). Love and other emotions. On the process of feeling. London, UK: Karnac.
- Cacioppo, S., Bianchi-Demicheli, F., Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R. L. (2012). Social neuroscience of love. Clinical Neuropsychiatry: Journal of Treatment Evaluation, 9(1), 3-13.
- Chapman, G. D. (1995). The five love languages: how to express heartfelt commitment to your mate. [New ed.]. Chicago: Northfield Pub.
- de Boer, A., Van Buel, E. M., & Ter Horst, G. J. (2012). Love is more than just a kiss: a neurobiological perspective on love and affection. Neuroscience, 201, 114-124
- Edwards, S., & Self, D. W. (2006). Monogamy: Dopamine ties the knot. Nature Neuroscience, 9(1), 7-8.
- http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nn0106-7
- Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. (1986). A theory and method of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(2), 392-402. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.392
- Jankowiak, W. R., Fischer, E. F. (1992). A Cross-Cultural Perspective on Romantic Love.Ethnology, 31(2), 149-155. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3773618
- Lee, J. A. (1973). Colours of love: An exploration of the ways of loving /c [by] John Alan Lee. Toronto: New Press.
- Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. Journal of Personality and Scoail Psychology, 16:265-273.
- Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93(2), 119-135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.119