The reliability of the measurement scale and questionnaire is evaluated with Cronbach's α. A large Cronbach's α value indicates that the scale is highly reliable. The validity of the scale includes construct validity and convergent validity. This study applies a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to examine the construct validity of the measurement scale. Standardized factor loading, composite reliability, and average variance extracted (AVE) are used to examine the construct validity and convergent validity of the scale. Table 1 shows the definitions of variables. The total reliability (Cronbach's α value) of the variables from the questionnaire is 0.937. The Cronbach α of the OI (integrity perception) [organizational trust] of CEOs and department managers is between 0.95 and 0.99 (0.91 and 0.99) [0.97 and 0.99]. The Cronbach α of all is >0.7, even reaching 0.9 (Nunally, 1978 ). Thus, both scale and questionnaire are quite reliable.
The results of CFA show that the factor loading of each variable is >0.5 and the contrast validity (CR) of OI, integrity, and organizational trust of CEO and department managers is between 0.90 and 0.99, 0.69 and 0.79, and 0.76 and 0.79, respectively, which meets the requirement of 0.6 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988 ). The AVE of OI, integrity, and organizational trust of CEOs and department managers is between 0.61 and 0.65, 0.52 and 0.65, and 0.61 and 0.65, respectively, which meets the requirement of 0.5 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988 ). A large CR or AVE value indicates that the measurement scale possesses high validity. The results of CFA indicate that the construct validity, composite validity, and convergent validity of the scale and questionnaire in this study are high. The results are shown in Table 4 .
Reliability and validity test of scale.
Organizational identification (middles and CEOs) | 0.95–0.99 | |
Environment integrity perception (middles and CEOs) | 0.91–0.99 | |
Organizational trust (middles and CEOs) | 0.97–0.99 | |
Organizational identification (middles and CEOs) | 0.90–0.99 | 0.61–0.65 |
Environment integrity perception (middles and CEOs) | 0.69–0.79 | 0.52–0.65 |
Organizational trust (middles and CEOs) | 0.76–0.79 | 0.61–0.65 |
The correlation analysis in Tables 5 – 7 shows that PSR is significantly negatively correlated with IDEN and is significantly negatively correlated with TRUST . According to the measure of PSR , a larger PSR indicates a weaker PSR. This indicates that OI is significantly positively correlated with PSR and also with organizational trust. The results are consistent with H1 and H2.
Correlation analysis: internal control managers.
IDEN_IC | 1 | ||||||||||||||||
TRUST_IC | 0.15 | 1 | |||||||||||||||
PSR_IC | −0.10 | −0.19 | 1 | ||||||||||||||
GROWTH | 0.04 | 0.06 | −0.06 | 1 | |||||||||||||
INVENTORY | −0.05 | −0.01 | −0.01 | −0.03 | 1 | ||||||||||||
SIZE | −0.01 | 0.07 | −0.17 | 0.00 | 0.12 | 1 | |||||||||||
LOSS | −0.00 | −0.03 | −0.07 | −0.13 | 0.01 | −0.02 | 1 | ||||||||||
AUDITOR_RESIGN | 0.05 | −0.00 | 0.07 | 0.15 | −0.01 | 0.06 | 0.02 | 1 | |||||||||
AUDITOR | −0.03 | 0.01 | 0.01 | −0.03 | −0.01 | 0.39 | −0.02 | 0.07 | 1 | ||||||||
SOE | −0.04 | −0.09 | 0.04 | −0.11 | 0.11 | 0.39 | 0.13 | 0.09 | 0.15 | 1 | |||||||
DUAL | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.01 | −0.07 | −0.16 | −0.04 | −0.03 | −0.07 | −0.28 | 1 | ||||||
FIRST | 0.01 | −0.02 | −0.06 | −0.03 | 0.05 | 0.22 | −0.03 | 0.07 | 0.14 | 0.19 | −0.04 | 1 | |||||
MAO | 0.04 | 0.02 | −0.07 | −0.06 | −0.01 | −0.01 | 0.19 | 0.03 | −0.01 | 0.05 | −0.00 | −0.02 | 1 | ||||
INDEPEN | −0.00 | 0.08 | −0.01 | −0.00 | 0.01 | −0.05 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.03 | −0.09 | 0.12 | 0.07 | 0.03 | 1 | |||
MANSHARE | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.08 | −0.11 | −0.36 | −0.12 | −0.03 | −0.12 | −0.48 | 0.23 | −0.10 | −0.06 | 0.10 | 1 | ||
TRADE | 0.04 | −0.03 | 0.09 | 0.05 | −0.09 | −0.33 | −0.08 | 0.02 | −0.08 | −0.20 | 0.11 | −0.04 | −0.05 | 0.05 | 0.34 | 1 | |
ROA | 0.03 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 0.26 | −0.10 | 0.02 | −0.52 | 0.04 | 0.04 | −0.16 | 0.05 | 0.03 | −0.30 | −0.03 | 0.17 | −0.14 | 1 |
Lower-triangular cells report Pearson's correlation coefficients, upper-triangular cells are Spearman's rank correlation .
IDEN, Organizational identification; PSR, Parasocial relationship; TRUST, Integrity perception .
The larger the PSR, the weaker the PSR between the department heads and the CEOs .
Correlation analysis: audit managers.
IDEN_AUDIT | 1 | ||||||||||||||||
TRUST_AUDIT | 0.13 | 1 | |||||||||||||||
PSR_AUDIT | −0.17 | −0.07 | 1 | ||||||||||||||
GROWTH | −0.04 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 1 | |||||||||||||
INVENTORY | −0.01 | 0.04 | −0.01 | −0.03 | 1 | ||||||||||||
SIZE | 0.07 | 0.01 | −0.03 | 0.00 | 0.12 | 1 | |||||||||||
LOSS | 0.00 | −0.07 | −0.04 | −0.13 | 0.01 | −0.02 | 1 | ||||||||||
AUDITOR_RESIGN | −0.01 | 0.03 | −0.02 | 0.15 | −0.01 | 0.06 | 0.02 | 1 | |||||||||
AUDITOR | 0.03 | 0.03 | −0.05 | −0.03 | −0.01 | 0.39 | −0.02 | 0.07 | 1 | ||||||||
SOE | 0.02 | −0.03 | 0.02 | −0.11 | 0.11 | 0.39 | 0.13 | 0.09 | 0.15 | 1 | |||||||
DUAL | −0.02 | −0.03 | −0.01 | 0.01 | −0.07 | −0.16 | −0.04 | −0.03 | −0.07 | −0.28 | 1 | ||||||
FIRST | 0.01 | 0.05 | −0.06 | −0.03 | 0.05 | 0.22 | −0.03 | 0.07 | 0.14 | 0.19 | −0.04 | 1 | |||||
MAO | −0.03 | 0.02 | 0.04 | −0.06 | −0.01 | −0.01 | 0.19 | 0.03 | −0.01 | 0.05 | −0.00 | −0.02 | 1 | ||||
INDEPEN | 0.05 | 0.03 | −0.05 | −0.00 | 0.01 | −0.05 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.03 | −0.09 | 0.12 | 0.07 | 0.03 | 1 | |||
MANSHARE | −0.02 | 0.00 | −0.05 | 0.08 | −0.11 | −0.36 | −0.12 | −0.03 | −0.12 | −0.48 | 0.23 | −0.10 | −0.06 | 0.10 | 1 | ||
TRADE | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 0.05 | −0.09 | −0.33 | −0.08 | 0.02 | −0.08 | −0.20 | 0.11 | −0.04 | −0.05 | 0.03 | 0.34 | 1 | |
ROA | −0.00 | 0.09 | 0.05 | 0.26 | −0.10 | 0.02 | −0.52 | 0.04 | 0.04 | −0.16 | 0.05 | 0.03 | −0.30 | −0.03 | 0.17 | −0.14 | 1 |
Correlation analysis: financial managers.
IDEN_FINANCE | 1 | ||||||||||||||||
TRUST_FINANCE | 0.10 | 1 | |||||||||||||||
PSR_FINANCE | −0.10 | −0.15 | 1 | ||||||||||||||
GROWTH | 0.00 | 0.06 | −0.05 | 1 | |||||||||||||
INVENTORY | −0.02 | −0.01 | 0.02 | −0.03 | 1 | ||||||||||||
SIZE | −0.01 | 0.02 | −0.06 | 0.00 | 0.12 | 1 | |||||||||||
LOSS | −0.01 | −0.07 | 0.02 | −0.13 | 0.01 | −0.02 | 1 | ||||||||||
AUDITOR_RESIGN | 0.01 | −0.02 | −0.05 | 0.15 | −0.01 | 0.06 | 0.02 | 1 | |||||||||
AUDITOR | −0.02 | 0.04 | −0.02 | −0.03 | −0.01 | 0.39 | −0.02 | 0.07 | 1 | ||||||||
SOE | 0.01 | −0.04 | 0.03 | −0.11 | 0.11 | 0.39 | 0.13 | 0.09 | 0.15 | 1 | |||||||
DUAL | 0.05 | −0.01 | 0.00 | 0.01 | −0.07 | −0.16 | −0.04 | −0.03 | −0.07 | −0.28 | 1 | ||||||
FIRST | 0.01 | 0.02 | −0.02 | −0.03 | 0.05 | 0.22 | −0.03 | 0.07 | 0.14 | 0.19 | −0.04 | 1 | |||||
MAO | 0.04 | 0.02 | −0.05 | −0.06 | −0.01 | −0.01 | 0.19 | 0.03 | −0.01 | 0.05 | −0.00 | −0.02 | 1 | ||||
INDEPEN | 0.03 | −0.01 | 0.02 | −0.00 | 0.01 | −0.05 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.03 | −0.09 | 0.12 | 0.07 | 0.03 | 1 | |||
MANSHARE | −0.01 | 0.02 | −0.04 | 0.08 | −0.11 | −0.36 | −0.12 | −0.03 | −0.12 | −0.48 | 0.23 | −0.10 | −0.06 | 0.10 | 1 | ||
TRADE | 0.02 | 0.01 | −0.01 | 0.05 | −0.09 | −0.33 | −0.08 | 0.02 | −0.08 | −0.20 | 0.11 | −0.04 | −0.05 | 0.03 | 0.34 | 1 | |
ROA | −0.00 | 0.09 | −0.02 | 0.26 | −0.10 | 0.02 | −0.52 | 0.04 | 0.04 | −0.16 | 0.05 | 0.03 | −0.30 | −0.03 | 0.17 | −0.14 | 1 |
The variance inflation factor (VIF) is far below 10, indicating that the multicollinearity concern is non-negligible. Thus, we conduct a regression analysis. Firstly, in the OLS regression, we test the main effect of PSR on OI. Secondly, due to the inaccuracy of a three-step method for testing the mediation effect and the non-robustness of the traditional Sobel test, we apply the bootstrapping mediation analysis method, which is considered relatively robust and accurate. We use the bootstrapping method for a mediation effect test by integrating the study of Wetzel et al. ( 2014 ). According to the mediation effect testing procedure by Zhao et al. ( 2010 ) and the mediator hypothesis testing method by Hayes ( 2013 ), we conduct the bootstrapping mediator test with 2,000 repetitions and a 95% confidence level.
Tables 8 , ,9 9 show the regression results for the main effect of a PSR. Without a mediator, the estimated effect of PSRs on organizational trust (OT) is −0.131 to −0.073 ( p < 0.1 or 0.01). A large value of the PSR index indicates a weak PSR. Therefore, the main effect is significant; namely, the PSR between department managers and CEOs is positively associated with OI. H1 and H2 are supported.
PSR and organizational trust.
PSR_IC | −0.115 | ||
(−3.37) | |||
PSR_FINANCE | −0.101 (−4.75) | ||
PSR_AUDIT | −0.051 (−2.25) | ||
GROWTH | 0.045 (1.38) | 0.042 (1.43) | 0.015 (0.36) |
INVENTORY | 0.009 (0.04) | 0.008 (0.05) | 0.450 (2.66) |
SIZE | 0.014 (0.64) | −0.004 (−0.26) | 0.010 (0.54) |
LOSS | 0.057 (0.57) | −0.055 (−0.84) | −0.098 (−1.29) |
AUDITOR_RESIGN | −0.059 (−0.59) | −0.028 (−0.41) | 0.094 (1.16) |
AUDITOR | −0.013 (−0.13) | 0.108 (1.20) | 0.059 (0.62) |
SOE | −0.050 (−0.85) | −0.018 (−0.43) | −0.090 (−1.89) |
DUAL | 0.030 (0.42) | −0.013 (−0.35) | 0.000 (0.01) |
FIRST | 0.000 (0.09) | 0.001 (0.57) | 0.001 (0.63) |
MAO | 0.056 (0.36) | 0.102 (0.94) | 0.284 (2.28) |
INDEPEN | 0.560 (1.20) | −0.160 (−0.55) | 0.050 (0.16) |
MANSHARE | 0.149 (0.52) | −0.028 (−0.31) | −0.073 (−0.79) |
TRADE | −0.002 (−0.28) | −0.000 (−0.26) | 0.004 (2.23) |
ROA | 1.081 (1.79) | 0.397 (1.36) | 0.555 (1.79) |
INDUSTRY | −0.010 (−1.22) | 0.007 (1.35) | −0.004 (−0.60) |
_cons | 1.995 (3.71) | 2.663 (6.98) | 2.174 (5.27) |
424 | 1,105 | 902 | |
R-Square | 0.066 | 0.037 | 0.040 |
Adj.R-Square | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.02 |
PSR and OI.
| | | | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PSR_IC | −0.073 (−1.93) | −0.058 (−1.54) | ||||
TRUST_IC | 0.124 (2.28) | |||||
PSR_FINANCE | −0.069 (−3.06) | −0.060 (−2.65) | ||||
TRUST_FINANCE | 0.088 (2.75) | |||||
PSR_AUDIT | −0.131 (−4.94) | −0.124 (−4.70) | ||||
TRUST_AUDIT | 0.131 (3.31) | |||||
GROWTH | 0.014 (0.39) | −0.011 (−0.35) | −0.123 (−2.56) | 0.009 (0.24) | −0.015 (−0.47) | −0.125 (−2.62) |
INVENTORY | −0.210 (−0.91) | −0.076 (−0.47) | 0.018 (0.09) | −0.211 (−0.92) | −0.077 (−0.48) | −0.040 (−0.20) |
SIZE | −0.005 (−0.20) | 0.001 (0.04) | 0.058 (2.72) | −0.007 (−0.28) | 0.001 (0.06) | 0.057 (2.67) |
LOSS | 0.006 (0.05) | 0.006 (0.09) | 0.179 (2.01) | −0.002 (−0.01) | 0.011 (0.16) | 0.192 (2.16) |
AUDITOR_R~N | 0.048 (0.43) | 0.063 (0.87) | 0.069 (0.72) | 0.055 (0.50) | 0.066 (0.90) | 0.056 (0.60) |
AUDITOR | −0.026 (−0.23) | −0.005 (−0.05) | −0.059 (−0.52) | −0.024 (−0.22) | −0.015 (−0.15) | −0.067 (−0.60) |
SOE | −0.022 (−0.34) | −0.004 (−0.08) | −0.053 (−0.95) | −0.015 (−0.24) | −0.002 (−0.04) | −0.041 (−0.74) |
DUAL | 0.008 (0.10) | 0.082 (2.11) | −0.022 (−0.48) | 0.004 (0.05) | 0.083 (2.15) | −0.022 (−0.49) |
FIRST | −0.000 (−0.08) | 0.000 (0.32) | −0.001 (−0.64) | −0.000 (−0.09) | 0.000 (0.27) | −0.001 (−0.71) |
MAO | 0.126 (0.73) | 0.088 (0.76) | −0.114 (−0.78) | 0.119 (0.69) | 0.079 (0.68) | −0.151 (−1.03) |
INDEPEN | 0.110 (0.21) | 0.184 (0.59) | 0.676 (1.84) | 0.040 (0.08) | 0.198 (0.64) | 0.669 (1.83) |
MANSHARE | 0.223 (0.70) | 0.026 (0.27) | −0.079 (−0.73) | 0.204 (0.65) | 0.029 (0.30) | −0.069 (−0.64) |
TRADE | 0.003 (0.46) | −0.000 (−0.16) | 0.002 (1.08) | 0.003 (0.49) | −0.000 (−0.13) | 0.002 (0.83) |
ROA | 0.024 (0.04) | 0.013 (0.04) | 0.470 (1.29) | −0.111 (−0.17) | −0.022 (−0.07) | 0.397 (1.09) |
INDUSTRY | −0.003 (−0.30) | −0.005 (−0.81) | 0.003 (0.36) | −0.002 (−0.17) | −0.005 (−0.92) | 0.003 (0.43) |
_cons | 4.362 (7.33) | 4.246 (10.48) | 2.889 (5.95) | 4.114 (6.83) | 4.010 (9.72) | 2.605 (5.31) |
424 | 1,105 | 902 | 424 | 1,105 | 902 | |
R-Square | 0.019 | 0.017 | 0.056 | 0.031 | 0.024 | 0.067 |
Adj.R-Square | −0.02 | 0.00 | 0.04 | −0.01 | 0.01 | 0.05 |
Table 10 displays the bootstrapping method results. For internal control managers, the percentiles for bootstrap and bias-corrected bootstrap analysis indicate that the direct effect is not significant because the CI of a direct effect is >0 (e.g., BC: [−0.13535, 0.0147845]). An indirect effect is significant because the CI of the indirect effect does not reach 0 (e.g., BC: [−0.0357188, −0.0022935]). This indicates that the organizational trust mediates the correlation between the PSR and the OI completely, given the insignificance of a direct effect. Similarly, for financial and audit managers, the CIs of direct and indirect effects do not reach 0. For example, the CI of direct and indirect effects in the financial department is [BC: −0.1102263, −0.0134493] and [BC: −0.0192012, −0.002345]. This indicates that the mediation path of “PSR–organizational trust–organizational identification” is significant and the mediation effect of organizational trust is partial. H3 is supported.
Bootstrapping test for mediation effect.
. | . | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dir_eff | −0.058 | −0.00085 | 0.038 | −0.136 | 0.013 (P) |
−0.135 | 0.014 (BC) | ||||
Ind_eff | −0.014 | 0.00009 | 0.008 | −0.033 | −0.001 (P) |
−0.035 | −0.002 (BC) | ||||
Dir_eff | −0.060 | 0.00057 | 0.0255 | −0.108 | −0.012 (P) |
−0.110 | −0.013 (BC) | ||||
Ind_eff | −0.008 | 0.00001 | 0.004 | −0.017 | −0.002 (P) |
−0.019 | −0.002 (BC) | ||||
Dir_eff | −0.124 | 0.00053 | 0.040 | −0.206 | −0.048 (P) |
−0.211 | −0.054 (BC) | ||||
Ind_eff | −0.007 | 0.00011 | 0.004 | −0.015 | −0.00037 (P) |
−0.017 | −0.001 (BC) |
P, percentile CI; BC, bias-corrected CI .
To test the robustness of the above regression results, we use the two means to test the hypotheses. Firstly, the secretary of the board is one of the top executives in China and is usually the person in charge of the information disclosure of a company. We choose the variables on the PSRs between middle managers and secretaries of the board ( IC_PSR_2, FINANCE_PSR_2 , and AUDIT_PSR_ 2), which are derived using the same calculation method as substitution variables for PSRs between middle managers and CEOs. As shown in Tables 11 , ,12, 12 , the results are consistent with those previously reported in Tables 8 , ,9. 9 . Organizational trust completely mediates the correlation between PSRs and OI in the internal control department, but only partially mediates the relationship in financial and audit departments. Only the total effect in the internal control department is not significant (the estimated coefficient is −0.045 and the value of p is 0.2). One explanation is that the sample size for the internal control department is much less than that of financial and audit departments.
Endogenous test: total effect.
IC_PSR_2 | −0.045 (−1.27) | ||
FINANCE_PSR_2 | −0.069 (−3.29) | ||
AUDIT_PSR_2 | −0.140 (−5.49) | ||
GROWTH | 0.023 (0.68) | −0.002 (−0.08) | −0.118 (−2.64) |
INVENTORY | −0.183 (−0.82) | −0.035 (−0.22) | −0.054 (−0.28) |
SIZE | 0.012 (0.51) | 0.008 (0.47) | 0.062 (2.96) |
LOSS | −0.061 (−0.59) | −0.028 (−0.41) | 0.110 (1.27) |
AUDITOR_RESIGN | 0.058 (0.58) | 0.076 (1.06) | 0.089 (0.97) |
AUDITOR | −0.068 (−0.65) | −0.020 (−0.21) | −0.037 (−0.34) |
SOE | −0.004 (−0.06) | −0.036 (−0.82) | −0.027 (−0.48) |
DUAL | 0.016 (0.21) | 0.070 (1.83) | −0.036 (−0.81) |
FIRST | −0.000 (−0.25) | 0.000 (0.18) | −0.001 (−0.47) |
MAO | 0.129 (0.74) | 0.115 (1.03) | −0.171 (−1.29) |
INDEPEN | 0.198 (0.40) | 0.149 (0.48) | 0.533 (1.47) |
MANSHARE | 0.217 (0.67) | 0.006 (0.06) | −0.052 (−0.47) |
TRADE | 0.002 (0.39) | −0.000 (−0.14) | 0.002 (0.84) |
ROA_3 | −0.172 (−0.27) | 0.015 (0.05) | 0.385 (1.10) |
INDUSTRY | −0.005 (−0.51) | −0.003 (−0.54) | −0.001 (−0.14) |
_cons | 3.913 (6.77) | 4.106 (10.38) | 2.897 (6.10) |
442 | 1,132 | 914 | |
R-Square | 0.016 | 0.018 | 0.057 |
Adj.R-Square | −0.02 | 0.00 | 0.04 |
Robustness test: mediation effect.
. | . | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dir_eff | 0.030 | −0.00103 | 0.038 | −0.104 | 0.041 (P) |
−0.103 | 0.042 (BC) | ||||
Ind_eff | −0.014 | 0.00015 | 0.007 | −0.031 | −0.003 (P) |
−0.033 | −0.004 (BC) | ||||
Dir_eff | −0.061 | 0.00018 | 0.025 | −0.113 | −0.014 (P) |
−0.115 | −0.016 (BC) | ||||
Ind_eff | −0.008 | −0.00005 | 0.004 | −0.016 | −0.002 (P) |
−0.017 | −0.002 (BC) | ||||
Dir_eff | −0.128 | 0.00152 | 0.041 | −0.207 | −0.047 (P) |
−0.211 | −0.054 (BC) | ||||
Ind_eff | −0.012 | −0.00006 | 0.005 | −0.023 | −0.004 (P) |
−0.024 | −0.005 (BC) |
Secondly, this study studies the influence of the PSR between middle managers and CEOs on their OI and the mechanisms of that process. To test the robustness of the regression results as mentioned earlier, we use the mean value ( TMT_IDEN ) of the organization identification of the CEO and the secretary of the board as a substitution variable for the dependent variable. The regression results of substitution variables are consistent with the previous ones. The regression results are displayed in Table 13 .
Robustness test.
PSR_IC | −0.162 (−4.16) | ||
PSR_FINANCE | −0.186 (−8.09) | ||
PSR_AUDIT | −0.069 (−2.78) | ||
GROWTH | −0.060 (−1.61) | −0.041 (−1.32) | 0.006 (0.12) |
INVENTORY | −0.036 (−0.15) | −0.156 (−0.96) | −0.036 (−0.19) |
SIZE | 0.030 (1.14) | 0.022 (1.25) | 0.015 (0.74) |
LOSS | −0.164 (−1.42) | −0.032 (−0.45) | −0.032 (−0.38) |
AUDITOR_RESIGN | 0.142 (1.25) | 0.046 (0.63) | 0.058 (0.65) |
AUDITOR | 0.058 (0.50) | −0.001 (−0.01) | −0.158 (−1.50) |
SOE | −0.061 (−0.91) | −0.069 (−1.53) | 0.022 (0.42) |
DUAL | 0.123 (1.51) | 0.043 (1.11) | 0.030 (0.70) |
FIRST | −0.003 (−1.54) | −0.001 (−0.90) | −0.001 (−0.40) |
MAO | 0.128 (0.72) | 0.044 (0.38) | 0.012 (0.09) |
INDEPEN | 0.595 (1.11) | 0.683 (2.18) | 0.457 (1.33) |
MANSHARE | −0.233 (−0.72) | −0.032 (−0.32) | 0.002 (0.02) |
TRADE | 0.002 (0.31) | −0.001 (−0.35) | −0.000 (−0.10) |
ROA | −0.183 (−0.26) | −0.043 (−0.14) | −0.053 (−0.16) |
INDUSTRY | −0.011 (−1.12) | 0.010 (1.68) | 0.009 (1.38) |
_cons | 3.713 (6.00) | 3.728 (9.10) | 3.816 (8.37) |
418 | 1,087 | 889 | |
R-Square | 0.080 | 0.075 | 0.018 |
Adj.R-Square | 0.04 | 0.06 | −0.00 |
This study uses the survey data from the internal control research group of the CSRC in 2014 and tests the effect of a PSR on the OI of middle managers and its mediation path. The results imply that the PSR between middle managers and CEOs positively predicts the OI of middle managers, and the organizational trust of middle managers mediates that relationship. In particular, organizational trust completely mediates the correlation between the PSR and OI of internal control managers but partially mediates that relationship for financial and audit managers.
This study has the following implications regarding the effect of the PSR between middle managers and CEOs on the OI of middle managers.
Firstly, PSRs can be leveraged as a vehicle for building OT and OI in the workplace, and CEOs should be actively working to strengthen these relationships. Previous studies have shown that OI can have many positive effects, such as improving job satisfaction, increasing organizational citizenship behavior (Tse et al., 2014 ), and increasing audit independence and quality (Bauer, 2015 ). Organizational members with high OI are more committed to their work as well as exhibit positive attitude and behavior (Karanika-Murray et al., 2015 ), such as improving their superior–subordinate relationship, increasing their organizational citizenship behavior (Zhang and Chen, 2013 ), increasing their job satisfaction (Karanika-Murray et al., 2015 ), enhancing their firm output (Lange et al., 2015 ), and reducing the costs of their agency (Boivie et al., 2011 ; Lange et al., 2015 ). Because the PSR between middle managers and CEOs originates from the emotional resonance induced by the language and behavior of CEOs, CEOs can utilize various channels, such as video conference, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and public speech, to convey positive personal characteristics, views, attitudes, and caring signals; attract the attention and preferential affection of middle managers and other employees; and then build and maintain a PSR, which may lead to more positive cognition and behaviors. In addition, future research could investigate specific pathways by which CEOs or other C-suite can strengthen PSR in their workplace.
Secondly, CEOs should value the influence of PSR and organizational trust and improve his/her own social and work abilities. PSR may be used as a tool for building better organizations, increasing differentiation, sustaining superior competitive advantage, enhancing talent development, etc. Organizational trust of middle managers may have a significant positive impact on their sense of responsibility, ethical behavior, organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and performance (Williams and Anderson, 1991 ; Agnihotri and Krush, 2015 ). Our study reveals that the trust relationship between CEOs and middle managers is significantly positively correlated with the OI of the middle managers. It is critical for the CEOs to establish a good and credible image because the trust of middle managers in CEOs is based on the perceptions and assessments of middle managers on the ability of the CEOs to do things and to implement goodwill (Williams and Anderson, 1991 ; Mayer et al., 1995 ; McAllister, 1995 ; Agnihotri and Krush, 2015 ). CEOs can respond by improving their appearance, speech, ability, act, and the ways they treat their middle managers to improve PSRs or perceptions of trust of middle managers.
Finally, CEOs should adopt different methods to influence different managers. Organizational trust completely mediates the relationship between the PSR and OI but only partially mediates the relationship in financial and audit departments. For internal control managers, CEOs should take measures that only affect the PSR and organizational trust of the middle managers, but there may need more comprehensive measures for financial and audit managers. In this study, we use surveys over 2,500 listed firms and 12,000 individuals with a response rate of ~85%. Therefore, our results could generalize to most of the publicly listed firms in the emerging markets of China. However, our study is not free of limitations. Firstly, there is a significant SD when measuring the PSR between MMs and CEOs, which indicates the nature to which PSRs are experienced is highly variable and dependent on both personal and contextual factors. This big SD likely limits the strength to which conclusions as to the affect can be made. Secondly, the sampled population consists of a disproportionately large cohort of individuals from finance and audit departments. Given the influence of in-role contextual factors on the nature to which PSR is experienced, this likely skews the findings to be more reflective of PSR affection within this department. 1 Future research could further explore the economic consequences of PSRs and/or how PSRs could be used to enhance workplace practice. It would be beneficial to investigate current workplace trends and how PSR can be used as a tool for building better organizations, increasing differentiation, sustaining superior competitive advantage, and enhancing talent development. In addition, more research work is expected in the future to ground these findings in a larger organizational context. For instance, an interesting question would be whether it is expected that the nature of PSR and its effects on OT and OI would be the same in a different geographic context or whether it would vary over time.
Author contributions.
YL: idea, writing manuscript, and running data. BL: funding, revising manuscript, and advice. HZ and XY: revising manuscript and advice. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
This work was supported by Philosophy and Social Science Foundation of China: 18VSJ082 and National Natural Science Foundation of China: Nos. 71332004, 71272198, and 71862017.
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
1 We owe our thanks to the anonymous reviewers for making these insightful comments on the strength and weakness of our study.
Verywell / Brianna Gilmartin
When to get help.
Unrequited love involves having strong romantic feelings toward another person who does not feel the same way. It is a one-sided experience that can leave people with feelings of pain, grief, and shame.
You may think it would be easy to tell if love is unrequited but it isn't always clear and can cause a lot of confusion and emotional turmoil. Learn what to look for and how to address the situation.
Unrequited love may take a few different forms, including:
It is important to recognize that it is common for people to experience unrequited feelings at some point. Recognizing the signs of unrequited love may help you learn to deal with it more effectively and find ways to move on.
There are signs that can help you understand what is going on and if the love you are feeling for someone is being reciprocated. Some people describe feeling as if they are getting "mixed signals" from a love interest only to find that it is, in fact, unrequited love.
Are you the only person making effort to communicate? Are you the only one reaching out to check in with the other person to see how the day is going or find out what important things are happening in their life?
When you are the only one taking the time to reach out and connect with the other person, follow up with them about things, or inquire about their life, it can be a sign that this love is unrequited.
In healing dynamics, two partners who care about each other are motivated to connect with each other and share in the pattern of fluid, healthy communication . The exchange of energy between partners in a healthy relationship feels balanced and doesn't leave one person bearing the responsibility of connecting.
Research has shown that people who reject other people's affections often experience guilt. Rejectors tend to view would-be lovers as unreasonable, self-deceptive, and annoying; would-be lovers, on the other hand, tend to view their rejectors as mysterious and inconsistent.
Do you desire to touch the other person, to hold hands, to kiss or hug? Longing for connection often includes the desire for physical contact, and when people are equally attracted and desire physical intimacy, both parties want to connect on a physical level.
If you find that you are always the one initiating any physical touch, or that when you attempt to physically connect, you are met with resistance or the other person pulling away, it can signal that this is a one-sided longing.
Many times, in situations of unrequited love, one person has the other on a pedestal. The love interest is perceived as near perfect and any imperfections are easily explained away. There are rarely healthy boundaries set in unrequited love.
When people build a healthy romantic bond, they can both still see one another's faults, vulnerabilities, or imperfections. Healthy relationships allow for space for people to make mistakes and use those opportunities to help create closer bonds.
Each party can see and hear each other and their areas of vulnerability. In an unrequited love dynamic, only the emotionally invested person is able to see and hear the other party. There is not a mutual, healthy acknowledgment of each other in unrequited love.
Hosted by therapist Amy Morin, LCSW, this episode of The Verywell Mind Podcast shares why vulnerability is important in healthy relationships. Click below to listen now.
Follow Now : Apple Podcasts / Spotify / Google Podcasts
Getting to know another person takes time. Over the course of time, partners in a healthy relationship go through experiences together, ask questions, and make an effort to understand and get to know each other . In an unrequited love dynamic, there is emotional investment on only one side.
You might find that you are always asking questions, initiating contact, and making efforts to invite the person into conversation or experiences. In turn, the other person may know nothing about you at all, never ask you questions, or never seem to invite you into any meaningful conversation about you, such as your desires, interests, goals, or hobbies.
You may long for the other person to know you but the opportunities for sharing with them never seem to come.
How the other person feels has more to do with them than with you—but how you respond to those feelings might be because of conflicts or challenges that you are dealing with.
Sometimes, you might love that person because you've idealized them in your mind. You are attached to that ideal version without really viewing them as a full, complex individual with flaws and even undesirable characteristics.
For some people, it might be a case of simply wanting someone they know they can't have. The fact that there can never be a genuine connection is part of the appeal. For someone with an insecure attachment style , being in love with someone who won't return those feelings means they can stay in a distant relationship without making other real connections.
Loving someone, and being loved in return, requires making yourself vulnerable and accepting that authentic, two-sided relationships involve both risk and reward. Staying stuck on unrequited love allows you to remain in the safety of a pseudo-relationship that can never be real and will never require you to become vulnerable, accept risk, and commit to another person.
Unrequited love can be a source of stress and emotional turmoil. Some of the potential effects of experiencing unrequited love include:
There are many things you can do to move forward after the heartbreak of unrequited love. It may feel impossible now, especially as you begin the healing process, but know that this takes time and healing can happen.
Although unrequited love can feel extremely painful, it can offer an opportunity to grow in unexpected ways.
Through the experience of unrequited love, you can gain a better understanding of your needs, your patterns in a relationship, and how to become a healthy, positive partner in the future.
Unrequited love usually results in deep heartbreak and feelings of rejection. When you are emotionally invested in someone and they don't seem to feel the same way about you, you might question your worth or wonder if you will ever feel loved.
Taking time to grieve your loss is important. You are certainly not alone in your experience, as many people have been through situations in which their love for another person was not reciprocated.
Challenge the thoughts that might creep in telling you that there is something wrong with you or that you are not enough. There are a variety of reasons why love may not be reciprocated that have nothing to do with your worth or being "enough."
It's hard to move past the pain of rejection if you are dwelling and ruminating on your heartbreak. This doesn't mean that you should completely avoid thinking about what has happened, but rather that you should find ways to stay busy so that you are not dwelling on negative thoughts.
Spend time with friends who can offer support. Over time, you will find that the pain lessens and you are in a better place to look back at the experience with greater objectivity.
This may be your first experience with unrequited love or you may find that this seems to be a pattern for you. Much of the way people view and experience adult relationships has to do with what they learned growing up, what they observed, and what they were taught about love and relationships.
Attachment style can influence how you develop and maintain adult romantic relationships. Attachment, as described by famed psychologist John Bowlby , is a deep and enduring emotional bond that connects people to each other. Primarily referenced within parent-child dynamics, more research is showing that attachment style has quite a bit to do with adult romantic relationships as well.
Understanding your attachment style can allow you to gain insight into your own patterns of relationship, your needs, and how to develop healthier connections.
When you have experienced unrequited love, it is likely you have poured a lot of emotional energy into another person, and this may leave you feeling drained. To move forward in a healthy way, it is critical that you reinvest energy into yourself, your interests, your hobbies, and your personal goals .
Your sense of self can become lost when experiencing unrequited love since your sense of self may be strongly connected to your love interest and your continual longing for them to return that love. Instead:
Dealing with unrequited love, a breakup, or another type of relationship distress can lead to complex feelings of sadness, anger, and sometimes depression. If you are struggling to cope because of unrequited love or some other relationship issue, consider getting help from a mental health professional.
A therapist can help if you:
If you are having suicidal thoughts, contact the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 988 for support and assistance from a trained counselor. If you or a loved one are in immediate danger, call 911.
For more mental health resources, see our National Helpline Database .
It can also be challenging to cope if you are the person who doesn't return someone else's feelings of love. Rejecting another person isn't easy, especially if you know how deeply they will be hurt. However, it is important to be clear to avoid future complications.
Unrequited love hurts, but it is possible to heal, grow, and move on from the experience. It's important not to take the other person's lack of feelings personally—it probably has more to do with them than with you. Once you can accept the reality of the situation, you can gain distance and perspective that will allow you to move on and start building a relationship that is reciprocated.
Baumeister RF, Wotman SR, Stillwell AM. Unrequited love: On heartbreak, anger, guilt, scriptlessness, and humiliation . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1993;64(3):377–394. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.3.377
Clark EM, Votaw KLB, Harris AL, Hasan M, Fernandez P. Unrequited love: The role of prior commitment, motivation to remain friends, and friendship maintenance . J Soc Psychol. 2019;1-17. doi:10.1080/00224545.2019.1648234
Hostinar CE. Recent developments in the study of social relationships, stress responses, and physical health . Curr Opin Psychol . 2015;5:90-95. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.05.004
Leonti M, Casu L. Ethnopharmacology of love . Front Pharmacol . 2018;9:567. doi:10.3389/fphar.2018.00567
Minerva F. Unrequited love hurts: The medicalization of broken hearts is therapy, not enhancement . Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 2015;24(4):479-485. doi:10.1017/S0963180115000134
By Jodi Clarke, MA, LPC/MHSP Jodi Clarke, LPC/MHSP is a Licensed Professional Counselor in private practice. She specializes in relationships, anxiety, trauma and grief.
Advertisement
2802 Accesses
3 Citations
2 Altmetric
Explore all metrics
In “Tragedy and Resentment” Ulrika Carlsson claims that there are cases when we are justified in feeling non-moral resentment against someone who harms us without wronging us, when the harm either consists in their attitude towards us or in the emotional suffering triggered by their attitudes. Since they had no duty to protect us from harm, the objectionable attitude is not disrespect but a failure to show love, admiration, or appreciation for us. I explain why unrequited love is the wrong example to use when arguing for the possibility of justified non-moral resentment—and why, therefore, Carlsson’s claim remains unsubstantiated. Pace Carlsson, people who fail to return our love are not best described as harming us, but as merely failing to benefit us by saving us from harm. Moreover, their role in the causal chain that results in our coming to harm is insufficient to warrant our resentment; more plausibly, we ourselves play a greater and more direct causal role in this process. This is a welcome result: Responding with (non-moral) resentment to someone’s failure to return our love indicates that our love has not taken the form of a genuine gift. When we put conditions on successful gifting by allowing for justified resentment if the gift is not returned we are not in fact giving gifts but making a bid for an exchange: I love you so that you love me back.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Subscribe and save.
Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Rent this article via DeepDyve
Institutional subscriptions
Another’s punishment cleanses the self: evidence for a moral cleansing function of punishing transgressors.
This is my reconstruction of Carlsson’s thesis, followed, on the next page, by my reconstruction of her argument for her thesis.
I am grateful to Jake Wojtowicz for drawing my attention to the fact that Carlsson’s claim is open to two different interpretations. The two interpretations are not mutually exclusive.
Wolf’s theory of this kind of responsibility may be controversial. I don’t take a stand on the soundness of this view, nor on the accuracy of Carlsson’s interpretation of it. My aim here is to evaluate Carlsson’s own view. My major concerns in this paper are not related to identity-responsibility.
This could mean that there is an agent of justice that is called to do something to ameliorate the situation: For instance, states may bear a duty to create the conditions in which romantic love can flourish, such as ensuring that all are educated, from a young age, about the virtues and perils of personal relationships; and that people have sufficient free time to dedicate to the cultivation of loving relationships. In addition, it may mean that states bear a duty to create social environments sufficiently inclusive to optimise the chances that everybody is able to give and receive romantic love (Brownlee 2020 ; Gheaus 2017 ). But it could also mean that we are dealing with a failure of justice understood in a purely evaluative sense, as the description of a state of affairs, rather than in a directly normative sense—that is, as generating a duty for a particular agent (Gheaus 2013 ).
Although, arguably, there can be a breach of duty if the reason for failing to return love is an objectionable attitude towards the lover. For instance, suppose the beloved was inclined to reciprocate, but that would not allow themselves to reciprocate because the lover is black and the beloved is racist. I am open to the possibility that in this case the beloved is in breach of a duty—but it consists in their specific reason for resisting love, rather than in the mere lack of reciprocation. Alfred Archer kindly drew my attention to this possibility.
This account is in line with the our frequent employment of a moralised concept of harm. It is intuitive to say that harm can be inflicted by the mere failure to act when it is morally required to bestow that benefit, and, at the same time, to resist the claim that harm can be inflicted by blamelessly failing to act. Imagine that a small child in a mall runs away from her father, who is distracted by a gadget. A passer-by notices, but fails to run after the child and return her to her father. The child gets lost and is terribly scared: she suffers harm. On any of the currently endorsed conceptions of harm (Rabenberg 2015 ) it is counter-intuitive to say that the passer-by harmed the child. But it is intuitive to say that the child has been harmed by her father, who had a duty to look after her. The reason why it seems proper to say that the father has harmed the child is that he owed the child protection from that particular harm.
There can be cases where the lack of reciprocation of romantic love is motivated by the appreciation, and unwillingness to jeopardise, an existing relationship—a friendship for example. Such cases show that failures to reciprocate love can express an optimally positive attitude, assuming that the beloved, in this case, sees the risk to an existing friendships as coming entirely from their inability to sustain romantic relationships. (Granted, this is not Ashley’s case.) Thank you to Alfred Archer for noting this possibility.
This is a big “if”, since the notion of causation by omission puzzles philosophers. See, for instance, Dowe ( 2010 ).
For a detailed and critical account of not only the Stoic’s, but also other hellenistic philosophy schools’s, take on how to acquire control over one’s emotions, see Nussbaum ( 1994 ).
For different concepts of causation in assessing causal responsibility see Blustein ( 1997 ).
This is not to deny the stoic point. Wellbeing here is to be understood as not mere absence of suffering. And the fact that my life goes better for me in one way if my gift is well-received does not contradict the belief that my suffering at having my gift turned down would depend on my interpretation of this fact. Further, some people seem able to love others without becoming vulnerable in this way. I leave aside the question of whether such love is better than the regular, vulnerable kind.
On why genuine—that is, disinterested—love is not conditional on being reciprocated, see Sara Protasi ( 2014 : 218) and Pilar Lopez-Cantero ( 2018 : 691); both discussions concern, specifically, cases of unrequited love. Love can remain unconditional even if it is not entirely freely given in the sense outlined above; but attaching the penalty of resentment to a failure to return one’s love pollutes the ideal gift-like unconditionality of love.
Blustein, Jeffrey. 1997. Procreation and Parental Responsibility. Journal of Social Philosophy. 28(2): 79–86.
Article Google Scholar
Brownlee, Kimberley. 2013. A Human Right Against Social Deprivation. The Philosophical Quarterly. 63(251): 199–222.
Brownlee, Kimberley. 2020. Being sure of each other: an essay on social rights and freedoms . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Book Google Scholar
Carlsson, Ulrika. 2018. Tragedy and Resentment. Mind 127(508): 1169–1191.
Dowe, Phil. 2010. A Counterfactual Theory of Prevention and “Causation” by Omission. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 79(2): 216–226.
Gheaus. 2013. The Feasibility Constraint on the Concept of Justice. Philosophical Quarterly 63(252): 445–464.
Gheaus. 2017. Love and Justice: a Paradox? Canadian Journal of Philosophy 47(6): 739–775.
Lopez-Cantero, Pilar. 2018. The Break-Up Check: Exploring Romantic Love through Relationship Terminations. Philosophia 46(3): 689–703.
McMahan, Jeff. 1993. Killing, Letting Die and Withdrawing Aid. Ethics 103: 250–279.
Nussbaum, Martha. 1994. The therapy of desire: theory and practice in hellenistic ethics . Princeton University Press.
Google Scholar
Protasi, Sara. 2014. Loving People for Who They Are (Even When They Don’t Love You Back). European Journal of Philosophy 24(1): 214–234.
Rabenberg, Michael. 2015. Harm. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 8(3).
Williams, Bernard. 1982. ‘Moral luck’. His moral luck . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wolf, Susan. 2015. Responsibility, Moral and Otherwise. Inquiry 58(2): 127–142.
Woollard, Fiona. 2015. Doing and allowing harm . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Download references
I am grateful to James Lenman, Alfred Archer, Fiona Woollard, Jake Wojtowicz and an anonymous reviewer for helpful feed-back on earlier drafts of this paper.
Authors and affiliations.
Political Science Department, Central European University, Vienna, Austria
Anca Gheaus
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Correspondence to Anca Gheaus .
Publisher's note.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Reprints and permissions
Gheaus, A. Unrequited Love, Self-victimisation and the Target of Appropriate Resentment. J Ethics 25 , 487–499 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-021-09368-0
Download citation
Received : 07 July 2020
Accepted : 10 March 2021
Published : 21 April 2021
Issue Date : December 2021
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-021-09368-0
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.
All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .
Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.
Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.
Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.
Original Submission Date Received: .
Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.
Please let us know what you think of our products and services.
Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.
Unrequited love, flirting and non-moral resentment, 1. introduction, 2. unrequited love, the lack of responsibility of the loved one and the right way for the loving person to deal with their love.
“For this reason, the interpretation that I propose is that Ashley fails to optimally benefit Scarlett. Scarlett resents Ashley for failing to benefit her in the particular way in which she wants him to benefit her, by not displaying an optimally positive attitude towards her; I submit that, under this description, her resentment looks not merely unjustified, but positively objectionable, especially if he cannot choose to benefit her optimally” [ 2 ]. (p. 493)
“In the particular case which is unrequited love, it seems attractive to say that part of harm—being unloved—wasn’t caused by any agent. To the extent to which there is no agent who is either morally or causally responsible for the harm, there is also no target of appropriate resentment (much like in the case of the wind destroying my garden). But another part of the harm of unrequited love, emotional suffering, is caused be the victims themselves, by their failure to control their hopes, beliefs and expectations; if so, they can be held causally responsible for some of the suffering they experience. To the extent to which the harm is self-inflicted, the only appropriate target of resentment is the victim herself, and the basis of resentment is that, by failing to remove oneself from the harm’s way, one failed to take proper care of oneself” [ 2 ]. (p. 497)
“When we put conditions on successful gifting by allowing for justified resentment if the gift receiver fails to display a particular attitude, we are not in fact giving gifts but making a bid for an exchange: I love you so that you love me back” [ 2 ]. (p. 498)
„After all, Ashley recognises he is a bit infatuated with her, and maybe his infatuation has shown; maybe he neglectfully encouraged Scarlett to fall in love with him. If so, then Ashley really is an appropriate target of Scarlett’s resentment, but of the moralised rather than of the tragic kind: in this case, Ashley has wronged Scarlett by provoking her love while knowing he will not be able, or willing, to reciprocate” 4 [ 2 ]. (p. 493)
“The distinction between courtship initiation and quasi-courtship appears to lie not in flirting behaviors per se but rather in the motivations that generate those behaviors. Sexually motivated flirting behaviors are courtship initiating; behaviors with no sexual intent are quasi-courtship” [ 7 ]. (p. 481)
“First, the flirter should act with the intention to do things which are disposed to raise flirter-flirtee romance and/or sex to salience for the flirtee, in a knowing yet playful manner. Second, he or she should believe that the flirtee can respond in some significant way” [ 8 ]. (p. 18)
“Because Ashley does not owe Scarlett love, he does not owe her an excuse for not loving her, either. Yet this does not mean that Ashley does not bear some kind of responsibility for his attitude to Scarlett and for its effect on her” [ 3 ]. (p. 1183)
“The perspective that rejection in love involves subcortical reward gain/loss systems critical to survival helps to explain why feelings and behaviors related to romantic rejection are difficult to control and lends insight into the high cross-cultural rates of stalking, homicide, suicide, and clinical depression associated with rejection in love” [ 12 ]. (p. 59)
“I have defined flirting as a conversational game involving two moves: push moves, which involve presupposing an intimacy that does not yet exist, and pull moves, which involve playfully pretending to block those presuppositions. As flirters perform rallies of these moves, they gradually increase the intimacy between them through a process which philosophers of language call accommodation” [ 14 ]. (p. 11)
7. conclusions, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.
1 | ] has written insightfully about the value of unrequited love. |
2 | is no longer the appropriate literary example, but this could be better illustrated by Pride and Prejudice. This would certainly be worthwhile if, in doing so, other aspects could be uncovered that are somehow related to the question of this paper (for example, forms of deception or of the social circumstances that favor certain forms of suffering from unrequited love). However, I believe that it is not crucial for the point I want to make and that it is also not crucial where an example for this this is illustrated in literature. Rather, I believe it is sufficient to ask what changes in the moral assessment if Ashley had flirted with Scarlett. Similarly, I think that the arguments of Carlsson and Gheaus are not dependent on the literary source but stand on their own. In Pride and Prejudice, there are constellations that, according to my analysis, would clearly fall under the concept of moral resentment, as well as those that, according to Carlsson, could function as non-moral resentment, where unrequited love was not actually exacerbated by the behavior of the loved one (e.g., through flirting). An example of this would be Mr. Darcy’s love for Elizabeth Bennet. |
3 | ] has argued that resentment is not only appropriate towards individuals but can also take an explicit political form, thus addressing structures and institutions. In the case that interests me in this paper, it is about the personal level, but there is another connection to social conditions, as one can assert with Alice MacLachlan [ ]. For MacLachlan, besides the standard paradigm of resentment as a reasonable and morally justified form of anger over the violation of moral rights, unreasonable resentment can also have ethical content, and resentment itself can only be understood against the backdrop of social and political conditions. In her distinction between morality and the ethical, MacLachlan refers to Bernard Williams, who argues that morality is concerned with the “pure” realm of rights and duties, while ethics is concerned with the realm of normative meaning. Here, an interesting—yet unaddressed—parallel to Carlsson’s understanding of tragic resentment emerges. This resentment is tragic because, although a violation occurs, it is not a violation of moral rights. Therefore, in terms of the standard concept that MacLachlan elaborates, it is not a form of reasonable resentment but unreasonable. But Carlsson’s understanding of tragic resentement still has—in the sense of MacLachlan—an ethical content. |
4 | , who had no interest in marrying Lydia Bennet, deceives her and thus deliberately accepts her dishonor through her illegitimate status. It would thus be justified for Lydia to feel resentment towards him. |
5 | |
6 | ], between the domain of morality, with clear rights and duties, and the ethical domain. Since there can be no clear duty for A not to flirt because there is a very low probability that the other person, B, will fall in love, there can nevertheless be non-moral resentment on B’s part if they do fall in love, because A plays a causal role in this. This assessment does not preclude that A has certain duties of care towards B in specific cases; for example, not flirting with B against her will or not in situations where B has less power or fewer opportunities to withdraw from the flirtation. However, I doubt whether there can be unequal conditions under which the likelihood that B will fall unrequitedly in love with A increases, although I do not want to rule this out entirely. It is conceivable, but I would not speak of genuine love in such cases, if, for instance, unequal conditions lead B to fall unrequitedly in love as a form of adaptive preference or as a result of alienation. |
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
Schweiger, G. Unrequited Love, Flirting and Non-Moral Resentment. Philosophies 2024 , 9 , 120. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies9040120
Schweiger G. Unrequited Love, Flirting and Non-Moral Resentment. Philosophies . 2024; 9(4):120. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies9040120
Schweiger, Gottfried. 2024. "Unrequited Love, Flirting and Non-Moral Resentment" Philosophies 9, no. 4: 120. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies9040120
Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.
Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals
IResearchNet
Unrequited love definition.
Unrequited love refers to instances when one person (the would-be lover) feels romantic, passionate feelings for an individual who does not return the same feelings (the rejector). Research indicates that unrequited love is quite common. Almost everyone in the United States has either loved someone who did not love them in return or been loved by someone they did not love in return by the time they reach college.
Unrequited love occurs for multiple reasons; there is no one specific reason why romantic attraction goes unreciprocated. Several common reasons emerged in the collected narratives, however. For instance, people will reject offers of love if they come from people who do not live up to standards they hold for a romantic partner. For example, one important standard people set is physical attractiveness. Research in social psychology indicates that people tend to prefer a romantic partner who is as physically attractive as, if not more physically attractive than, they are. So if Lauren develops a romantic attraction for Joe, she runs the risk of having her love rejected if Joe thinks that he is more physically attractive than Lauren.
Physical attractiveness is not the only mismatch that can lead to a rejection of love. People tend to marry those who are similar on a whole host of domains, such as level of intelligence and socioeconomics. Thus, when people fall in love with targets perceiving themselves to be superior on mate-valued traits, the admirer is liable to having their love rejected. Luckily, as people grow older they learn to better estimate their mate value and level of physical attractiveness. Consequently, they experience fewer instances of unrequited love and more instances of reciprocated love.
Platonic friendships can also lead to unrequited love. Friendships can exist between two people who differ in mate standards. Even though love will often go unreciprocated because of mismatches in mate value, would-be lovers could misread or misinterpret positive gestures and intimacies from a platonic friend as romantic feelings. This can lead would-be lovers to overinterpret the likelihood of gaining the love of their friend and want more from the platonic friendship than is desired by the target of their affection.
Developing relationships can also lead to unrequited love. Sometimes the rejector is initially interested but, after several dates, loses interest in the would-be lover for a variety of reasons. Perhaps the rejector is put off by certain values the would-be lover holds, the would-be lover could resemble the rejector’s mom or dad, or maybe the rejector comes to realize that he or she is not sexually attracted to the would-be lover despite finding the would-be lover to be physically attractive. Long-term relationships can even end in unrequited love, with one person wanting to continue the relationship while the other is losing interest. Although one may think all these different pathways will lead to very different experiences of unrequited love, research indicates that they are surprisingly similar.
Unrequited love is characterized by mutual incomprehension. Would-be lovers characterize the rejector as sending mixed signals and acting in inconsistent ways, whereas rejectors typically do not understand why the would-be lover continues to pursue them past the point of rejection.
Rejectors commonly grapple with feelings of guilt. Despite the portrayal of rejectors in the mass media as uncaring and cold, rejectors typically are quite concerned about whether they are leading the would-be lover on. Rejectors typically do not want to hurt the would-be lover, who is often a friend or colleague, and struggle with guilt that can accompany rejecting a person’s offer of love. Guilt, combined with the difficulty in delivering bad news to others, can often cause the rejector to send the message of rejection in a more indirect way to spare the person’s feelings and salvage the relationship. This, in turn, can confuse the would-be lover as to the rejector’s intentions. Or it can cause the would-be lover to maintain hope, prolonging the experience of unrequited love for both parties.
Would-be lovers, who do not want to hear the bad news of rejection, will often misconstrue, reinterpret, or completely ignore such ambiguous messages of rejection. If the rejector says no to Friday because he or she is busy, what would stop the would-be lover from trying for Saturday? No one wants to be rejected; it is very painful to know that someone does not feel the same way about you that you do for him or her. To ward off the negative experience of realizing the offer of love will not be returned by the object of affection is potentially one reason would-be lovers typically pursue the rejector long after the rejector feels it is appropriate to do so. Research indicates that once the would-be lover picks up on the message of rejection, he or she experiences a decline in self-esteem, signaling the end of the pursuit and the beginning of recovery.
Despite the pain that often accompanies having love rejected, would-be lovers look back at the experience with a mixture of positive and negative emotions. Would-be lovers describe the experience as a roller coaster of emotions, filled with many euphoric highs but also devastating lows. For example, the state of being in love with someone alone can keep the would-be lover in pursuit of his or her target. Rejectors, however, typically describe the experience as mainly a negative one consisting of few, if any, positives. Targets of affection may gain slight boosts in self-esteem from the flattery of being loved by someone, but this is offset by the moral guilt of rejecting someone and by the annoyance and frustration experienced if the would-be lover does not desist pursuit.
Unrequited love has allowed researchers to examine reasons why people reject love despite humans’ fundamental need for mutually caring relationships. That people should endure personal costs, such as emotional discomfort and personal humiliation, to find such a person highlights just how important the search is for humans.
Pining after our own inventions..
Posted April 11, 2020 | Reviewed by Gary Drevitch
Goethe's Werther from The Sorrows of Young Werther commits suicide when Charlotte does not return his love. The long-nosed Cyrano de Bergerac from Rostand's eponymous play is madly in love with his beautiful cousin Roxane, but she fancies another man. Literature is full of such tales, and it seems, so is life. While you probably don't know of any real person who committed suicide because of a broken heart (though it's said sensitive young men in Goethe's day and age did), you likely know many who have stories of unrequited love, and perhaps, you have such a story yourself.
But the ubiquity of unrequited love is only apparent, or so I am going to argue. In going along with tales of unilateral love, we accept the account of the lover. Forlorn lovers, however, are often mistaken, not about whether they love but about whom they love: While they may be heartbroken, the person they pine after is frequently a fiction, a figment of their own imagination . Before I explain why, let us consider requited love.
When love is reciprocated, each lover knows who the other is, the real other, and it is that real person — the person the other is — that's an object of love. The two lovers are attracted to each other physically as well, but their love is not mere physical attraction . It's the other way round, in fact: Whatever role physical attraction may have played in the genesis of love, in mature love, we yearn for the body because we love the person. This explains why no other body — however attractive — is an adequate substitute for the beloved's body. It is also why love doesn't vanish — and may even grow stronger — when the beloved's body is marred by sickness or accident.
But whom is it that we love with an unrequited love? Who refuses to return the affection?
Very often, I wish to suggest, the object of allegedly unrequited love is a fiction, or rather, a fictionalized version of a person. This version of the other, being altered, has multiple qualities that the real person does not possess. For one thing, he or she is the sort of person who could be happy with us; who could care about the things we care about, and who wants just what we have to offer. The real person, by contrast, is not a good match. That's precisely why he or she is rejecting us. So the object of our unrequited love — the fictional person — is not rejecting us since that person is an excellent match. And the real person who rejects us is not the person we love.
It may help to look at the issue from the other side, that of being the object of affection you cannot reciprocate. It's probably happened to you: Someone claimed to love you, but you felt nothing. You may have thought then that the other is mistaking physical attraction for love, or is simply wrong about who you are and what you need in a partner. In the other's mind, the two of you can be perfectly happy together, but you know that this is impossible. You may have even gotten flustered when the other made declarations of love; those sounded hollow to you. And in some sense, they were, not because they lacked depth necessarily but because they were meant for someone else, someone who looks like you and sounds like you, but who has different tastes and preferences: A fictional version of you.
Sometimes, we ourselves contribute to the creation of fictional versions of ourselves. This happens when we misrepresent ourselves, letting another fall in love with an unreal version of us . One frequently hears stories about relationships that started well but came to an abrupt end. The person whose romantic interest broke up with them often feels caught off guard. Why is today so different from yesterday when everything was love?
What happens in most of these cases, actually, is that the end of the relationship is only abrupt from the spurned person's point of view. The other misrepresented his or her actual feelings and preferences all along. He or she didn't really want to see that movie or to meet those friends. The words on that Valentine's day card that he or she wrote for the soon to be spurned lover did not come from the heart.
This person knew, at least at some level, that the relationship was bound to end. For if you didn't enjoy a few weeks or months spent with another, if you didn't want to go to the movies with them or meet their friends, how could you possibly believe the other is your soulmate? You don't, not really. That is why the breakup feels abrupt only to the one who was in the dark as to the true significance of everything.
Upon occasion, love starts without any misrepresentation on anyone's part, but one person's needs and preferences change, and consequently, so does the person. If the partner's feelings remain unchanged, this type of case may seem like a good candidate for the label "unrequited love," since the love began without fictions. But that's not quite right either. For while the spurned lover is not enamored with a fiction, his or her affection is directed at the other's past self. That self was real once but no longer is. People change.
I should point out here that there could be unrequited love between parents and children. A father may love his daughter though she doesn't love him back, and a son may love a mother who resents him because she never wanted children. Filial and parental love differ from romantic love , because in those cases, we don't love the other for who they are. Our parents and children may have qualities we appreciate, and those may strengthen our bond, but that is not the full basis of our love. If the neighbor's spouse is a better match for you than your own, you may be tempted to leave your own and make away with the neighbor's, but if the neighbor's mother or child is better than your own, you would feel no such temptation. You don't want anyone else's parents or children, no matter what qualities they have. You can love your own parents and children almost unconditionally. This is why you don't need to project on them qualities of your own making.
There are two more points I would like to note. First, the love a person may feel for a fictionalized version of another is not, in virtue of that, unreal. Feelings can be real whether or not their object is. That's certainly true of love and of heartache, but it is true more generally. It is just that the reality of our feelings does not confer existence upon their object. A snake-shaped tree branch does not turn into a snake simply because it makes us fearful. Same with love: The love of a fictionalized version — tailor-made to suit us — of another, however deep and abiding (if it is), does not bring that version of the other into existence. We lack the power to will another into being with the depth of our love.
Second, there may sometimes truly be unrequited love. This may happen, for instance, when the love is fully based on what little we know of the other, without illusions. That may be the case of Victor Hugo's Quasimodo from The Hunchback of Notre-Dame . Quasimodo, a man with a physical deformity, falls in love with Esmeralda, who does not return his love.
Now, Esmeralda is a strikingly beautiful woman while Quasimodo is a deformed man, but Quasimodo's love for Esmeralda is not mere physical attraction. Esmeralda is the only person who has ever shown human kindness to the hunchback; she brings him water when he is dying of thirst after being flogged and publicly humiliated. Indeed, Esmeralda so fully captures his heart that after she is hanged for a crime she has not committed, he goes to the cemetery, hugs her body, and never lets go until he dies of starvation.
There is no question but that Quasimodo's love is deep — and deeper than most any love we know. More importantly for present purposes, the object of his love may be the real Esmeralda, not a fictional version of her. He falls in love when she shows compassion toward him, and her compassion is genuine. That's all poor Quasimodo needs.
But Quasimodo's case is unusual. For the most part, we do not fall in love like that, because of a single act of kindness. In our imagination, the beloved has many different qualities. What I have been arguing here is that in the case of so-called unrequited love, some of those qualities — and from here, the object of our love — are inventions. The love is real, but not the object of love.
Follow me here .
Facebook image: Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock
Iskra Fileva, Ph.D., is an associate professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado, Boulder.
Sticking up for yourself is no easy task. But there are concrete skills you can use to hone your assertiveness and advocate for yourself.
Journey into the captivating world of TV narratives where love unreturned or deemed inappropriate takes center stage. This highly curated selection features a sweep of shows that successfully wrap the intensities of complex love narratives into engrossing episodes, from secret, scandalous affairs, to the heart-wrenching afflictions of unreciprocated love.
Across genres and time periods, these shows harbor a unifying element: the exploration of love in its many unprecedented forms. Whether it's the allure of a relationship defying societal norms or the complicated layers of one-sided love, our collection opens the door to a thrilling spectrum of captivating themes and gripping chronicles.
We elevate the TV viewing experience by integrating the power of community. As a viewer, your opinion shapes the fate of the rankings, enabling a unique form of engagement. Watch, vote, and be a part of molding a list that reflects popular opinion.
More so, effortlessly commence your next viewing experience with our streamlined access to streaming services. Our entries are equipped with handy streaming service buttons under each show listed. Your desired forbidden romance television series is just a click away, paving the way for seamless transitions from discovery to immersion.
With each narrative carefully evaluated for its compelling portrayal of passion, love, drama, and conflict, the list gives viewers an in-depth exploration of diverse love stories. Enjoy, participate, and prepare to be swept into whirlwinds of cinematic love narratives that dare to transcend societal boundaries. Our selection provides not just recommendations, but doorways into thrilling narratives, compelling characters, and the mesmerizing realm of forbidden love TV shows.
When the devil himself abandons Hell and ends up in Los Angeles, you know things are about to get interesting. A love story develops between the charming fallen angel and a determined homicide detective, but trying to make it work becomes a hellish task as celestial beings threaten their happiness.
Worth Your Time?
A pair of centuries-old vampire brothers find themselves irresistibly drawn to a high school girl, creating a tumultuous love triangle that spans across seasons. As supernatural threats loom over their small town, the heart-wrenching choices they make test the limits of love and sacrifice.
Set in a sleepy Southwestern town, this gripping series tells the story of aliens living among humans and the forbidden love that blooms between a human girl and an extraterrestrial boy. As they navigate the perils of high school, family secrets, and government conspiracies, they prove that love truly knows no boundaries.
Before he dons the cape and becomes Superman, a young Clark Kent struggles with his feelings for the girl next door, Lana Lang. As he navigates his burgeoning powers and the challenges of adolescence, their complicated relationship is anything but a typical high school romance .
In a world where fairy tale characters are cursed to live in our reality, an epic romance forms between a swashbuckling pirate and the town's savior. However, with dark forces constantly at play, it seems fate conspires against their happily ever after.
Set in the mythical world of King Arthur and Camelot, a young sorcerer must learn to wield his powers while secretly protecting the future king. As he battles magical creatures and forbidden love, destiny itself seems to be working against his happiness.
Advertisement
Supported by
By Daniel Goleman
SINCE Young Werther died from it and Cyrano de Bergerac was so noble about it, unrequited love has been one of the great themes of literature and drama. Now, at last, unrequited love is getting systematic scrutiny from psychologists.
The first studies to look at the two sides of unrequited love -- the would-be lover and the rejecter -- show there is pain on both sides and, surprisingly, the rejecter often suffers just as much as the rejected.
And in studying the dynamics of love that goes unreturned, psychologists are gaining greater understanding of common hurdles in the sometimes tortuous route to finding a lasting love.
"We rarely hear about the agony of those who are the target of an unwanted love," said Dr. Roy Baumeister, a psychologist at Case Western Reserve University who has done much of the new research. "Literature and film almost always tell the story from the viewpoint of the rejected lover. But both rejecters and would-be lovers can end up feeling like victims."
The experience of unrequited love -- not just a minor crush, but an intense, passionate yearning -- is virtually universal at some point in life. Dr. Baumeister and Sara Wotman, a graduate student, found in a study of 155 men and women that only about 2 percent had never loved someone who spurned them, or found themselves the object of romantic passion they did not reciprocate. Their findings will be published later this year in The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Despite the eventual heartbreak that is the destiny of the unrequited lover, by and large the incidents revealed that there was often more unhappiness on the part of the person pursued than on the pursuer. The unrequited lovers spoke of hope and passion before the final disillusionment; those who spurned them told of an initial flattery that soon gave way to bewilderment, guilt and anger at an intrusive, relentless pursuer.
We are having trouble retrieving the article content.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access.
Already a subscriber? Log in .
Want all of The Times? Subscribe .
COMMENTS
However, Berscheid (2010) contended that confusion around the conceptualization of love and clear differentiation of love is necessary for enhancing the quality of research on love. The current research demonstrates the high prevalence of UL, relative to equal love, and the distinctive nature of UL (e.g., emotional and behavioral manifestation).
A large body of research indicates a positive relationship between humor and psychological well-being ... among other factors. Other studies show that self-esteem not only matters as a potential consequence of romantic rejection ... Actuality of unrequited love as predictor (model 3) Step 1 (Intercept) 3.236: 0.058: 55.396 <0.001: 3.121: 3.352 ...
Unrequited love has been shown to last an average duration of between 10 and 17 months, depending on the type of unrequited love (Bringle et al., 2013). In that study, unrequited love for someone that an individual pursued lasted the shortest period of time (10.12 months) and romantic love for someone who an individual knows but has not ...
For a more detailed comparison of the subsamples with current vs. past experience of unrequited love, subgroup medians were compared using the Mann-Whitney-U-test (assumptions for an independent t-test were not met), exact results are presented in Table 2.In summary, the two subgroups differ regarding the main level of all main study variables except subjective burden due to unrequited love.
Unrequited love is "less emotionally intense than equal love" in all the positive ways, yet involves as much or more emotional turmoil (Bringle, 2013). In other words, it is characterized by ...
Unrequited love (UL) is unreciprocated love that causes yearning for more complete love. Five types of UL are delineated and conceptualized on a continuum from lower to greater levels of interdependence: crush on someone unavailable, crush on someone nearby, pursuing a love object, longing for a past lover, and an unequal love relationship.
In looking at unrequited love by age, it seems the ages of 16-20 are when the most unrequited love experiences occur, especially for males. The research is mixed on whether males or females are more likely to experience unrequited love, as evidence points to both having a higher frequency at some point.
Participants wrote about an unrequited love experience as a pursuer and completed measures of pre-unrequited love commitment, rejection distress, motivations to remain friends, and friendship maintenance behaviors. Our results confirmed the moderated mediation model when the motivations to remain friends measure overall score, the interpersonal ...
The financial and accounting data are from the China Stock Market and Accounting Research (CSMAR) database. We find that the PSR between middle managers and CEOs is positively associated with the OI of middle managers. Further, we show that that relationship is mediated by organizational trust.
Unrequited love refers to a love that is one-sided and not returned. It can feel painful, but it can also offer opportunities for self-growth. Here's how to cope. ... Research has shown that people who reject other people's affections often experience guilt. Rejectors tend to view would-be lovers as unreasonable, self-deceptive, and annoying ...
Michelle Hasan, PhD., is a Postdoctoral Research Associate at the University of Southern California, where she works as a Research Coordinator on a large scale government funded research project related to wellness and productivity in the workplace.She received her PhD. in Experimental Psychology (with dual concentrations in Social Psychology and Quantitative Methods for Behavioral Science ...
Robert G. Bringle 1,2, Terri Winnick 2,3 and Robert J. Rydell 4. Abstract. Unrequited love (UL) is unreciprocated love that causes yearning for more complete love. Five types of UL are delineated ...
For this reason, 41 participants with failure in love (26 women and 15 men) and 43 without failure in love participants (26 women and 17 men) were selected by Non-probability sampling methods and ...
Unrequited love is a universal experience which has been acknowledged and written about by poets for centuries. It has also been researched by social scientists. Roughly 98 percent of the ...
consummate romantic love is that it will be reciprocal, ful-filling, and enduring (e.g., Aron & Aron, 1986, 1996) and trusting, caring, and, intimate (Fehr, 2006). Unrequited love (UL) occurs when differences in the aspirations or the expe-riences of love result in a yearning for more complete love by one of the individuals in the relationship.
Since they had no duty to protect us from harm, the objectionable attitude is not disrespect but a failure to show love, admiration, or appreciation for us. I explain why unrequited love is the wrong example to use when arguing for the possibility of justified non-moral resentment—and why, therefore, Carlsson's claim remains unsubstantiated.
Ulrika Carlsson has argued that it its justified to harbor non-moral resentment towards a person with whom one is unrequitedly in love. Anca Gheaus has rejected this with convincing arguments. This text explores the question of whether Gheaus' verdict changes if the person being loved has previously flirted with the loving person. For this, it is first relevant what flirting actually is and ...
Unrequited love refers to instances when one person (the would-be lover) feels romantic, passionate feelings for an individual who does not return the same feelings (the rejector). Research indicates that unrequited love is quite common. Almost everyone in the United States has either loved someone who did not love them in return or been loved ...
The present study examined the roles of people's romantic beliefs and imagined interactions in unrequited love. Two hundred and twenty five Chinese college students participated in a survey study. More idealized romantic beliefs were associated with stronger unrequited love. Men's unrequited love was stronger than women's.
Second, there may sometimes truly be unrequited love. This may happen, for instance, when the love is fully based on what little we know of the other, without illusions. That may be the case of ...
Ranked By. 825 votes. 171 voters. Voting Rules. Vote up the best scripted shows with the central themes of star-crossed lovers, one-sided relationships, and unreciprocated romance. Latest additions: Love of My Life, Red Swan, Gangs of Galicia. Most divisive: Carnival Row.
Now, at last, unrequited love is getting systematic scrutiny from psychologists. The first studies to look at the two sides of unrequited love -- the would-be lover and the rejecter -- show there ...
research on unrequited love shows that: a. because it causes heartache, feelings of unrequited love fade quickly once it becomes clear the other person is not attracted to us in return. b. unrequited love is relatively rare because being romantically attracted to someone who is not romantically attracted to us in return is not rewarding.