Psychological Reports, 197 5 , 37, 83-88. @ Psychological Reports 1975
LOVE: A PSYCHOMETRIC APPROACH ALVIN PAM, ROBERT PLUTCHIK, A N D HOPE R. CONTE Albe~rEinstein College o f Medicine Summary.-A new psychometric instrument, the Love Scale, was developed for measuring feelings and anirudes associated with being i n love. A series of items was constructed to provide measures of five components assumed o n the basis of philosophical speculation and previous research to be basic to the love experience: Respect, Congeniality, Altruism, Physical Attraction, and Attachmenr. Both the total and the subscale scores proved to be highly reliable. The significant differences between Love, Dating, and Friendship groups clearly indicated that the Love relationship can be distinguished empirically from that of Dating o r Friendship. Most important to a Love relationship appeared to be Attachment and Physical Attraction.
Until recently, the concept of love has been almost totally neglected as a topic of research, despite its greac importance from both a practical and theoretical standpoint. Influential in forming the modern conception of love are the French novelist Stendhal ( 1947), the Spanish philosopher, Ortega y Gasset ( 1957), and the contemporary Catholic writer, Dennis de Rougemont (1956). However, none of these theorists were psychologists with an empirical approach to the problem. In addition, their conceptual orientation has largely been directed toward differentiating "true love" from other, shall we say "counterfeit," varieties. This approach seems arbitrary and unproductive. In contrast, the neobehaviorists, following Watson's (1930) lead, outlawed intervening variables of a "subjectivistic" nature from the scrutiny of respectable empirical research. This approach simply abandoned research on the subject. Only recent methodological reconsideration ( Wann, 1964, Ch. 1) , from the standpoint of a more liberal philosophy of science, permits research to be directed to topic areas dealing with essentially phenomenological variables such as "love." A first exception to the long neglect of this topic area is reported by Hatris (1965). H e presents a summary and review of a greac deal of literature, including psychoanalytic writers, literary writers, psychologists and philosophers. The following six elements, based upon this extensive literature, represent, in brief, his interpretation of the components of love (1965) : ( a ) feeling of respect, pride in partner; ( b ) outgoing feelings toward partner; ( c ) erotic feelings toward partner; ( d ) desire, need for outgoing feelings from partner; ( e ) feelings of closeness and intimacy with partner; and ( f ) feelings of hostility, repulsion toward partner. He developed scales for each of these six components on which people rated their love partners. There was no total score for love. Hattis found that subjects rated the scale reflecting dependency needs (Scale D) lower than scales for the other components. However, the way his dependency scale is defined, in-
84
A. PAM, ET AL.
cluding such words as "loneliness," "insecurity," and "jealousy," makes it unlikely that subjects would acknowledge "dependency" as a component of the love experience. In addition, Hattis's scales were not tested for reliability or validity. Pam (1970) used a modified version of the Hattis scales in a longitudinal study of love relationships among college students. H e demonstrated that the love scores covaried with the course of the relationship as people fell into and out of love over a 6-mo. period. He also found that the intensity of love feelings declines over time. In addition, the subjects with the very highest scores at the outset were the ones whose relationships tended not to last. However, in Pam's (1970) study, there was no analysis of the relative importance of the six subscales. A new "Love-Like" scale was developed by Rubin (1970), who found that "love" and "like" could be differentiated. His scale can be criticized on two grounds: a lack of theoretical rationale and the use of only one score to measure a concept as complex as love. It is evident that there is as yet no adequate psychometric technique for measuring feelings of love. It was the purpose of the present study to provide such an instrument.
METHOD Instead of using a single global rating to measure the six dimensions which Hattis ( 1965 ) assumed to be basic to the experience of love, it was decided to try to measure them through the use of a series of specific items. The content of the items was based on statements found in Hattis's instructions to subjects for making their global judgments. A preliminary questionnaire was constructed consisting of 43 items, each of which had face validity in relation to one or another of the six Hattis dimensions. It was completed by 60 college day and evening students whose mean age was 28 yr. Approximately two-thirds of the students were female and one-third male. Twenty students were asked to describe a person with whom they were in love, 20 were asked to respond in terms of a person with whom they were in a dating relationship but not in love, and the remaining 20 were asked to describe a person with whom they had a friendship relationship and were not in love. An item analysis showed that all but four items discriminated between the Love group and the other two. A group of seven experienced clinical psychologists rated the appropriateness of the remaining 39 items for each of the six subscales which were labeled , Physical Attraction, Attachment, Trust and Conas follows: R e s ~ c t Altruism, geniality. The result of the rating procedure showed very good agreement on all but three items which were subsequently discarded. There was, however, some confusion between the categories of Trust and Congeniality. It was decided, therefore, to combine these two categories under the title of Congeniality.
LOVE: PSYCHOMETRIC APPROACH
85
The final version of the scale thus consisted of five categories or subscales. In addition, the decision was made to have eight items for each of the subscales. Thus there were five component scores and a total score for each subject. In order to complete this final version of the scale, it was necessary to construct four new items, two to complete the Respect subscale, and one each for the Altruism and Attachment subscales. Following are examples of the subscale items for what is now titled the Love Scale: l He (she) has better judgment than the average person. You take his (her) suggestions seriously. Congeniality You and he (she) get along well 3s a couple. You feel he (she) understands you. Altruism You like giving gifts to him (her). You enjoy taking care of him (her). Physical Aitraction You think he (she) is better looking than average. He (she) is sexually attractive to you. Attachment It is important to be noticed by him (her). You feel more secure when you are with him (her).
1 . Rerpect
2.
3. 4. 5.
This Love Scale was completed by a new sample of 60 day and evening college students; 20 were reportedly in love with a person of the opposite sex, but not married; a separate group of 20 had a dating relationship but were not in love; and a third group of 20 were merely friendly with a member of the o p posite sex. The mean ages for the three groups ranged from 25 to 28 yr. Since the results of both Pam's (1970) study and of the pilot testing of the present study showed no significant differences between the scores of males and females, no attempt was made to analyze the data separately for each sex. Because the major focus of the study was on understanding the components of love and the subjective feelings associated with a love relationship, additional data were collected from 119 subjects who described themselves as being in love. Therefore, the N for the Love Group was these 119 subjects plus the 20 originally tested, for a total of 139. RESULTS
Odd-even reliability coefficients were determined by means of Pearson product-moment procedure for total Love Scale scores and for scores on each of the five subscales. The results of these analyses, which were performed for the Love, Dating, and Friendship groups separately, are presented in Table 1. As may be seen, for all groups, both the subscale and the total scores were highly reliable. The data for the Friendship and Dating groups were then combined to provide a Non-love group. Pearson product-moment correlations among the 'Copies of the Love Scale may be obtained by writin to Alvin Pam, Ph.D., Bronx State Hospital, 1500 Waters Place, Bronx, New York 1 0 4 8 .
A. PAM, ET AL. TABLE 1
ODD-EVEN RELIABILITY OF LOVESCALE SCORESFOR LOVE,DATING,AND FRIENDSHIP GROUPS* n
Respect
20 Love Dating 20 Friendship 20 *All Pearson product-moment
.94 .89 .95
ConAltruism Physical geniality Artraction
.92 .79 .90
Attachment
.76 .87 .87 .90 .95 .86 coefficients are significant ( p < .001). .84
.82 .95
Total
.95 .97 .97
subscales and between each of the subscales and the total scores were then computed for the Love ( N = 139) and Non-love groups ( N = 40) separately in order to determine the relative independence of the scales. When correlating each scale with the total score, that particular scale value was subtracted from the total score before the correlation was run. These intercorrelations are presented in Table 2. As may be seen, all subjects for both the Love and Non-love groups show moderate, positive correlations with one another. This is what one would predict if these subscales all represent different parameters contributing to a complex construct. TABLE 2
PEARSON PRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELAT'IONS AMONG SUBSCALES AND TOTALSCORES ON LOVESCALE FOR LOVE( N = 139) AND NON-LOVE ( N = 4 0 ) GROUPS* Respect
Congeniality
Altruism
Congeniality .52(.51) Altruism .42 (.26) .37(.54) Physical Attraction .30(.16) .48(.32) .56(.64) Attachment .30(.24) .37(.44) .56(.66) *Correlations for the Non-love group are presented in parentheses.
Physical Attraction
.51(.70)
Means and standard deviations for each of the subscales and for total scores for the three groups of 20 subjects each are presented in Table 3. Note that the Love group consistently scored higher than the other two groups for all five subscales and for total score. This finding contributes to the construct validity of the Love Scale. Table 3 also presents the F ratios obtained from one-way analyses of variance. These F ratios indicate that there were significant differences among the groups on total scores and on all the subscales except Congeniality. The Tukey-Snedecor procedure (Snedecor, 1956) for making comparisons among means was then employed to determine where the significant differences lay. For the Altruism and Attachment subscales and for the Total scale, the Love .05) than did either the Dating group had significantly higher mean scores ( p
LOVE: A PSYCHOMETRIC APPROACH ALVIN PAM, ROBERT PLUTCHIK, A N D HOPE R. CONTE Albe~rEinstein College o f Medicine Summary.-A new psychometric instrument, the Love Scale, was developed for measuring feelings and anirudes associated with being i n love. A series of items was constructed to provide measures of five components assumed o n the basis of philosophical speculation and previous research to be basic to the love experience: Respect, Congeniality, Altruism, Physical Attraction, and Attachmenr. Both the total and the subscale scores proved to be highly reliable. The significant differences between Love, Dating, and Friendship groups clearly indicated that the Love relationship can be distinguished empirically from that of Dating o r Friendship. Most important to a Love relationship appeared to be Attachment and Physical Attraction.
Until recently, the concept of love has been almost totally neglected as a topic of research, despite its greac importance from both a practical and theoretical standpoint. Influential in forming the modern conception of love are the French novelist Stendhal ( 1947), the Spanish philosopher, Ortega y Gasset ( 1957), and the contemporary Catholic writer, Dennis de Rougemont (1956). However, none of these theorists were psychologists with an empirical approach to the problem. In addition, their conceptual orientation has largely been directed toward differentiating "true love" from other, shall we say "counterfeit," varieties. This approach seems arbitrary and unproductive. In contrast, the neobehaviorists, following Watson's (1930) lead, outlawed intervening variables of a "subjectivistic" nature from the scrutiny of respectable empirical research. This approach simply abandoned research on the subject. Only recent methodological reconsideration ( Wann, 1964, Ch. 1) , from the standpoint of a more liberal philosophy of science, permits research to be directed to topic areas dealing with essentially phenomenological variables such as "love." A first exception to the long neglect of this topic area is reported by Hatris (1965). H e presents a summary and review of a greac deal of literature, including psychoanalytic writers, literary writers, psychologists and philosophers. The following six elements, based upon this extensive literature, represent, in brief, his interpretation of the components of love (1965) : ( a ) feeling of respect, pride in partner; ( b ) outgoing feelings toward partner; ( c ) erotic feelings toward partner; ( d ) desire, need for outgoing feelings from partner; ( e ) feelings of closeness and intimacy with partner; and ( f ) feelings of hostility, repulsion toward partner. He developed scales for each of these six components on which people rated their love partners. There was no total score for love. Hattis found that subjects rated the scale reflecting dependency needs (Scale D) lower than scales for the other components. However, the way his dependency scale is defined, in-
84
A. PAM, ET AL.
cluding such words as "loneliness," "insecurity," and "jealousy," makes it unlikely that subjects would acknowledge "dependency" as a component of the love experience. In addition, Hattis's scales were not tested for reliability or validity. Pam (1970) used a modified version of the Hattis scales in a longitudinal study of love relationships among college students. H e demonstrated that the love scores covaried with the course of the relationship as people fell into and out of love over a 6-mo. period. He also found that the intensity of love feelings declines over time. In addition, the subjects with the very highest scores at the outset were the ones whose relationships tended not to last. However, in Pam's (1970) study, there was no analysis of the relative importance of the six subscales. A new "Love-Like" scale was developed by Rubin (1970), who found that "love" and "like" could be differentiated. His scale can be criticized on two grounds: a lack of theoretical rationale and the use of only one score to measure a concept as complex as love. It is evident that there is as yet no adequate psychometric technique for measuring feelings of love. It was the purpose of the present study to provide such an instrument.
METHOD Instead of using a single global rating to measure the six dimensions which Hattis ( 1965 ) assumed to be basic to the experience of love, it was decided to try to measure them through the use of a series of specific items. The content of the items was based on statements found in Hattis's instructions to subjects for making their global judgments. A preliminary questionnaire was constructed consisting of 43 items, each of which had face validity in relation to one or another of the six Hattis dimensions. It was completed by 60 college day and evening students whose mean age was 28 yr. Approximately two-thirds of the students were female and one-third male. Twenty students were asked to describe a person with whom they were in love, 20 were asked to respond in terms of a person with whom they were in a dating relationship but not in love, and the remaining 20 were asked to describe a person with whom they had a friendship relationship and were not in love. An item analysis showed that all but four items discriminated between the Love group and the other two. A group of seven experienced clinical psychologists rated the appropriateness of the remaining 39 items for each of the six subscales which were labeled , Physical Attraction, Attachment, Trust and Conas follows: R e s ~ c t Altruism, geniality. The result of the rating procedure showed very good agreement on all but three items which were subsequently discarded. There was, however, some confusion between the categories of Trust and Congeniality. It was decided, therefore, to combine these two categories under the title of Congeniality.
LOVE: PSYCHOMETRIC APPROACH
85
The final version of the scale thus consisted of five categories or subscales. In addition, the decision was made to have eight items for each of the subscales. Thus there were five component scores and a total score for each subject. In order to complete this final version of the scale, it was necessary to construct four new items, two to complete the Respect subscale, and one each for the Altruism and Attachment subscales. Following are examples of the subscale items for what is now titled the Love Scale: l He (she) has better judgment than the average person. You take his (her) suggestions seriously. Congeniality You and he (she) get along well 3s a couple. You feel he (she) understands you. Altruism You like giving gifts to him (her). You enjoy taking care of him (her). Physical Aitraction You think he (she) is better looking than average. He (she) is sexually attractive to you. Attachment It is important to be noticed by him (her). You feel more secure when you are with him (her).
1 . Rerpect
2.
3. 4. 5.
This Love Scale was completed by a new sample of 60 day and evening college students; 20 were reportedly in love with a person of the opposite sex, but not married; a separate group of 20 had a dating relationship but were not in love; and a third group of 20 were merely friendly with a member of the o p posite sex. The mean ages for the three groups ranged from 25 to 28 yr. Since the results of both Pam's (1970) study and of the pilot testing of the present study showed no significant differences between the scores of males and females, no attempt was made to analyze the data separately for each sex. Because the major focus of the study was on understanding the components of love and the subjective feelings associated with a love relationship, additional data were collected from 119 subjects who described themselves as being in love. Therefore, the N for the Love Group was these 119 subjects plus the 20 originally tested, for a total of 139. RESULTS
Odd-even reliability coefficients were determined by means of Pearson product-moment procedure for total Love Scale scores and for scores on each of the five subscales. The results of these analyses, which were performed for the Love, Dating, and Friendship groups separately, are presented in Table 1. As may be seen, for all groups, both the subscale and the total scores were highly reliable. The data for the Friendship and Dating groups were then combined to provide a Non-love group. Pearson product-moment correlations among the 'Copies of the Love Scale may be obtained by writin to Alvin Pam, Ph.D., Bronx State Hospital, 1500 Waters Place, Bronx, New York 1 0 4 8 .
A. PAM, ET AL. TABLE 1
ODD-EVEN RELIABILITY OF LOVESCALE SCORESFOR LOVE,DATING,AND FRIENDSHIP GROUPS* n
Respect
20 Love Dating 20 Friendship 20 *All Pearson product-moment
.94 .89 .95
ConAltruism Physical geniality Artraction
.92 .79 .90
Attachment
.76 .87 .87 .90 .95 .86 coefficients are significant ( p < .001). .84
.82 .95
Total
.95 .97 .97
subscales and between each of the subscales and the total scores were then computed for the Love ( N = 139) and Non-love groups ( N = 40) separately in order to determine the relative independence of the scales. When correlating each scale with the total score, that particular scale value was subtracted from the total score before the correlation was run. These intercorrelations are presented in Table 2. As may be seen, all subjects for both the Love and Non-love groups show moderate, positive correlations with one another. This is what one would predict if these subscales all represent different parameters contributing to a complex construct. TABLE 2
PEARSON PRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELAT'IONS AMONG SUBSCALES AND TOTALSCORES ON LOVESCALE FOR LOVE( N = 139) AND NON-LOVE ( N = 4 0 ) GROUPS* Respect
Congeniality
Altruism
Congeniality .52(.51) Altruism .42 (.26) .37(.54) Physical Attraction .30(.16) .48(.32) .56(.64) Attachment .30(.24) .37(.44) .56(.66) *Correlations for the Non-love group are presented in parentheses.
Physical Attraction
.51(.70)
Means and standard deviations for each of the subscales and for total scores for the three groups of 20 subjects each are presented in Table 3. Note that the Love group consistently scored higher than the other two groups for all five subscales and for total score. This finding contributes to the construct validity of the Love Scale. Table 3 also presents the F ratios obtained from one-way analyses of variance. These F ratios indicate that there were significant differences among the groups on total scores and on all the subscales except Congeniality. The Tukey-Snedecor procedure (Snedecor, 1956) for making comparisons among means was then employed to determine where the significant differences lay. For the Altruism and Attachment subscales and for the Total scale, the Love .05) than did either the Dating group had significantly higher mean scores ( p
