essay about expressing attraction love and commitment

Essays About Commitment: Top 5 Examples and 7 Prompts

If you are writing essays about commitment, read our guide with helpful examples and writing prompts to help you get started. 

To be committed to something is to be devoted and willing to put time, energy, and effort into it. Commitment can be directed towards other people, organizations, goals, or beliefs. However, it is more than just a promise; it requires consistent dedication. 

Commitment is a broad term and can include committing to tasks, such as chores, or significant commitments in life, like marriage or priesthood. Commitment is an admirable trait that shows courage and determination, but it can also be challenging to commit to a task, lifestyle change, or moral decision. Such a broad topic makes for an exciting essay; keep reading to see our top examples and prompts to help you get started.

5 Top Essay Examples

1. the difference between love and commitment by howard soto, 2. a short essay on commitment by bleri lleshi, 3. honor, courage, commitment by ada robinson, 4. commitment for a better future. by sheel nidhi tripathi.

• 5. ​​Your Goals Are Nothing Without Commitment by Anthony J. Yeung

1. Why Is Commitment Important?

2. what are you committed to, 3. commitment in action, 4. when i failed at commitment, 5. commitment role models, 6. how to practice commitment, 7. values that align with commitment.

“Commitment is communicated primarily through shared experiences and moments. For example individuals might opt to have some specified moments they associate and share certain experiences and activities such as outdoor activities. This essentially calls for dedications. Love however is communicated by the parties involved being emotionally available for each other. It involves the doing of certain favors for each other without complain regardless of the situation.”

Soto explains how love and commitment are different, yet that commitment is an essential part of love. In summary, anyone can practice commitment, which is essential for creating a successful and loving relationship. Love takes commitment, as you must be willing to make sacrifices. 

“Commitment means giving a piece of ourselves in what we do. It sounds simple but it is not. It’s simple nor obvious. The obviousness got lost in the dominance of the ‘everyone for his/her own’ discourse. For those who can not give that piece of his or herself in his or her actions, it is difficult to understand why some of us do commit ourselves. Often we even cannot give an exact reason of why we are committed. Commitment must be experienced and not explained that is why my explanation here, can never match the experience of commitment.”

In his essay, Lleshi writes about why it is more important to be committed than ever. This is because many problems require our attention, such as the spread of individualism. To Lleshi, commitment means sacrificing a part of ourselves to achieve a profound goal. He wants everyone to be committed to a better future and united in our commitment to change global issues, such as stopping pollution and global warming. 

“Often we even cannot give a exact reason of why we are committed. Commitment must be experienced and not explained that is why my explanation here, can never match the experience of commitment. We must always abide by an uncompromising code of integrity, taking responsibility for our actions and keeping our word. We shall earn respect up and down the chain of command. Be honest and truthful in our dealings with each other, and with those outside the Navy.”

Robinson, a member of the U.S. Navy, describes the values they are taught, including commitment. The concepts of honor, bravery, courage, and commitment are instilled in every officer in the navy. They are taught to take responsibility for their mistakes, be devoted to protecting and serving the American nation, and be committed to upholding the country’s laws. 

“The unknown can be a scary feeling, adventure as an idea is thrilling but not everyone is cut out to live it.I have lost my sleep, and when I fall asleep I get these weird dreams, which shows me all the things that I am thinking subconsciously. Yet, from here on I am letting go all my fears and do all the things I dreamt to do as a kid.”

In her essay, Tripathi writes about how her life has been challenging and that she has always let the influences and rules of others dictate her actions. However, she is now committed to building a healthier lifestyle through fitness, working on her communication and listening skills, and taking an interest in her hobbies.

5. ​​ Your Goals Are Nothing Without Commitment by Anthony J. Yeung

“Find a reason for being that inspires you to be earnest with each day. That commitment, in and of itself, will enhance your life in countless ways. I’ve learned there’s no greater feeling than keeping the promises we make to ourselves. There’s an overwhelming feeling of pride, joy, love, and gratitude that goes beyond the goal itself and gives you the confidence you can achieve anything.”

Yeung discusses the importance of setting achievable goals so that we have a reason to be committed. He wants people to stay on course and stop making excuses for failing to achieve goals; he laments that life often distracts people from achieving goals. Instead, he encourages readers to take a deep look into themselves and set goals based on things they enjoy and are inspired by. That way, it will be so much easier to stay committed.

7 Prompts for Essays About Commitment

Commitment is essential to achieving goals and success, but how exactly? Write about why commitment is meaningful and valuable. Then, explore the importance of commitment in different situations. Research the benefits of being committed to a task or person, and describe these benefits within your essay. For help with this topic, read the essay examples above for inspiration. 

Everyone has committed to something or someone in their life. In your essay, list some of your goals, explaining why you have chosen to commit to them. If applicable, you can also give examples of people or organizations you are committed to, whether it be loved ones or your job. 

You will feel proud and relieved when you fulfill a commitment. Recall a time you showed commitment and were proud of it. Describe the commitment, and explain to your readers how you fulfilled (or continue to fulfill) your commitment. Explain your reasons for dedicating your time and energy to this commitment.

On the other hand, you may also feel it is more appropriate to write about a time you failed to show commitment. Reflect on this experience and explain what you would do if you were allowed to repeat it. 

We all have role models that we look up to for inspiration. Who is this to you? Write about who has shown commitment and inspires you to be committed to your goals or loved ones. It can be a loved one, a famous person, or even a fictional character. Make sure you explain how this individual is an excellent example of commitment. 

In your essay, discuss habits you can pick up to commit to someone or something. It can include habits such as waking up early, getting adequate sleep, or a consistent dedication to a particular person or task. Describe how to practice these habits and achieve your goals through commitment and hard work.

Commitment is associated with other important traits, such as bravery, honesty, and courage. For your essay, you can also discuss what values you need to practice commitment to the best of your ability, be sure to explain your choices adequately. 

If you’re stuck picking an essay topic, check out our guide on how to write essays about depression .

If you’d like to learn more, in this guide, our writer explains how to write an argumentative essay .

Martin is an avid writer specializing in editing and proofreading. He also enjoys literary analysis and writing about food and travel.

View all posts

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

Towards a Comprehensive Theory of Love: The Quadruple Theory

Scholars across an array of disciplines including social psychologists have been trying to explain the meaning of love for over a century but its polysemous nature has made it difficult to fully understand. In this paper, a quadruple framework of attraction, resonance or connection, trust, and respect are proposed to explain the meaning of love. The framework is used to explain how love grows and dies and to describe brand love, romantic love, and parental love. The synergistic relationship between the factors and how their variations modulate the intensity or levels of love are discussed.

Introduction

Scholars across an array of disciplines have tried to define the meaning and nature of love with some success but questions remain. Indeed, it has been described as a propensity to think, feel, and behave positively toward another ( Hendrick and Hendrick, 1986 ). However, the application of this approach has been unsuccessful in all forms of love ( Berscheid, 2010 ). Some social psychologists have tried to define love using psychometric techniques. Robert Sternberg Triangular Theory of Love and Clyde and Susan Hendrick’s Love Attitudes Scale (LAS) are notable attempts to employ the psychometric approach ( Hendrick and Hendrick, 1986 ; Sternberg, 1986 ). However, data analysis from the administration of the LAS, Sternberg’s scale and the Passionate Love Scale by Hatfield and Sprecher’s (1986) found a poor association with all forms of love ( Hendrick and Hendrick, 1989 ). Other studies have found a poor correlation between these and other love scales with different types of love ( Whitley, 1993 ; Sternberg, 1997 ; Masuda, 2003 ; Graham and Christiansen, 2009 ).

In recent years, the neuropsychological approach to study the nature of love has gained prominence. Research has compared the brain activity of people who were deeply in love while viewing a picture of their partner and friends of the same age using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and concluded that there is a specialized network of the brain involved in love ( Bartels and Zeki, 2000 ). Indeed, several lines of investigation using fMRI have described a specialized area of the brain mediating maternal love ( Noriuchi et al., 2008 ; Noriuchi and Kikuchi, 2013 ) and, fMRI studies have implicated multiple brain systems particularly the reward system in romantic love ( Aron et al., 2005 ; Fisher et al., 2005 , 2010 ; Beauregard et al., 2009 ). Brain regions including ventral tegmental area, anterior insula, ventral striatum, and supplementary motor area have been demonstrated to mediate social and material reward anticipation ( Gu et al., 2019 ). Although brain imaging provides a unique insight into the nature of love, making sense of the psychological significance or inference of fMRI data is problematic ( Cacioppo et al., 2003 ).

Also, there has been growing interests in the neurobiology of love. Indeed, evidence suggests possible roles for oxytocin, vasopressin, dopamine, serotonin, testosterone, cortisol, morphinergic system, and nerve growth factor in love and attachment ( Esch and Stefano, 2005 ; De Boer et al., 2012 ; Seshadri, 2016 ; Feldman, 2017 ). However, in many cases, definite proof is still lacking and the few imaging studies on love are limited by selection bias on the duration of a love affair, gender and cultural differences ( De Boer et al., 2012 ).

So, while advances have been made in unraveling the meaning of love, questions remain and a framework that can be employed to understand love in all its forms remains to be developed or proposed. The objective of this article is to propose a novel framework that can be applied to all forms of love.

Theoretical Background and Hypothesis Development (The AAC Model)

In the past few decades, the psychological literature has defined and described different forms of love and from these descriptions, the role of attraction, attachment-commitment, and caregiving (AAC), appears to be consistent in all forms of love.

Attraction theory is one of the first approaches to explain the phenomenon of love and several studies and scholarly works have described the importance of attraction in different forms of love ( Byrne and Griffitt, 1973 ; Berscheid and Hatfield, 1978 ; Fisher et al., 2006 ; Braxton-Davis, 2010 ; Grant-Jacob, 2016 ). Attraction has been described as an evolutionary adaptation of humans for mating, reproduction, and parenting ( Fisher et al., 2002a , 2006 ).

The role of attachment in love has also been extensively investigated. Attachment bonds have been described as a critical feature of mammals including parent-infant, pair-bonds, conspecifics, and peers ( Feldman, 2017 ). Indeed, neural networks including the interaction of oxytocin and dopamine in the striatum have been implicated in attachment bonds ( Feldman, 2017 ). The key features of attachment include proximity maintenance, safety and security, and separation distress ( Berscheid, 2010 ). Multiple lines of research have proposed that humans possess an innate behavioral system of attachment that is essential in love ( Harlow, 1958 ; Bowlby, 1977 , 1988 , 1989 ; Ainsworth, 1985 ; Hazan and Shaver, 1987 ; Bretherton, 1992 ; Carter, 1998 ; Burkett and Young, 2012 ). Attachment is essential to commitment and satisfaction in a relationship ( Péloquin et al., 2013 ) and commitment leads to greater intimacy ( Sternberg, 1986 ).

Also, several lines of evidence have described the role of caregiving in love. It has been proposed that humans possess an inborn caregiving system that complements their attachment system ( Bowlby, 1973 ; Ainsworth, 1985 ). Indeed, several studies have used caregiving scale and compassionate love scale, to describe the role of caring, concern, tenderness, supporting, helping, and understanding the other(s), in love and relationships ( Kunce and Shaver, 1994 ; Sprecher and Fehr, 2005 ). Mutual communally responsive relationships in which partners attend to one another’s needs and welfare with the expectation that the other will return the favor when their own needs arise ( Clark and Mills, 1979 ; Clark and Monin, 2006 ), have been described as key in all types of relationships including friendship, family, and romantic and compassionate love ( Berscheid, 2010 ).

Attachment and caregiving reinforce each other in relationships. Evidence suggests that sustained caregiving is frequently accompanied by the growth of familiarity between the caregiver and the receiver ( Bowlby, 1989 , p. 115) strengthening attachment ( Berscheid, 2010 ). Several studies have proposed that attachment has a positive influence on caregiving behavior in love and relationships ( Carnelley et al., 1996 ; Collins and Feeney, 2000 ; Feeney and Collins, 2001 ; Mikulincer, 2006 ; Canterberry and Gillath, 2012 ; Péloquin et al., 2013 ).

The AAC model can be seen across the literature on love. Robert Sternberg triangular theory of love which proposes that love has three components —intimacy, passion, and commitment ( Sternberg, 1986 ), essentially applies the AAC model. Passion, a key factor in his theory, is associated with attraction ( Berscheid and Hatfield, 1978 ), and many passionate behaviors including increased energy, focused attention, intrusive thinking, obsessive following, possessive mate guarding, goal-oriented behaviors and motivation to win and keep a preferred mating partner ( Fisher et al., 2002b , 2006 ; Fisher, 2005 ). Also, evidence indicates that attachment is central to intimacy, another pillar of the triangular theory ( Morris, 1982 ; Feeney and Noller, 1990 ; Oleson, 1996 ; Grabill and Kent, 2000 ). Commitment, the last pillar of the triangular theory, is based on interdependence and social exchange theories ( Stanley et al., 2010 ), which is connected to mutual caregiving and secure attachment.

Hendrick and Hendrick’s (1986) , Love Attitudes Scale (LAS) which measures six types of love ( Hendrick and Hendrick, 1986 ) is at its core based on the AAC model. Similarly, numerous works on love ( Rubin, 1970 ; Hatfield and Sprecher, 1986 ; Fehr, 1994 ; Grote and Frieze, 1994 ), have applied one or all of the factors in the ACC model. Berscheid (2010) , proposed four candidates for a temporal model of love including companionate love, romantic love, and compassionate love and adult attachment love. As described, these different types of love (romantic, companionate, compassionate, and attachment) all apply at least one or all of the factors in the AAC model.

New Theory (The Quadruple Framework)

The AAC model can be fully captured by four fundamental factors; attraction, connection or resonance, trust, and respect, providing a novel framework that could explain love in all its forms. Table 1 shows the core factors of love, and the four factors derived from them.

Factors of love.

Evidence suggests that both attachment and attraction play a role in obsession or passion observed in love ( Fisher et al., 2005 ; Honari and Saremi, 2015 ). Attraction is influenced by the value or appeal perceived from a relationship and this affects commitment ( Rusbult, 1980 ).

Connection or Resonance

Connection is key to commitment, caregiving, and intimacy. It creates a sense of oneness in relationships and it is strengthened by proximity, familiarity, similarity, and positive shared experiences ( Sullivan et al., 2011 ; Beckes et al., 2013 ). Homogeneity or similarity has been observed to increase social capital and engagement among people ( Costa and Kahn, 2003a , b ), and it has been described as foundational to human relationships ( Tobore, 2018 , pp. 6–13). Research indicates that similarity plays a key role in attachment and companionship as people are more likely to form long-lasting and successful relationships with those who are more similar to themselves ( Burgess and Wallin, 1954 ; Byrne, 1971 ; Berscheid and Reis, 1998 ; Lutz-Zois et al., 2006 ). Proximity plays a key role in caregiving as people are more likely to show compassion to those they are familiar with or those closest to them ( Sprecher and Fehr, 2005 ). Similarity and proximity contribute to feelings of familiarity ( Berscheid, 2010 ). Also, caregiving and empathy are positively related to emotional interdependence ( Hatfield et al., 1994 ).

Trust is crucial for love ( Esch and Stefano, 2005 ) and it plays an important role in relationship intimacy and caregiving ( Rempel and Holmes, 1985 ; Wilson et al., 1998 ; Salazar, 2015 ), as well as attachment ( Rodriguez et al., 2015 ; Bidmon, 2017 ). Familiarity is a sine qua non for trust ( Luhmann, 1979 ), and trust is key to relationship satisfaction ( Simpson, 2007 ; Fitzpatrick and Lafontaine, 2017 ).

Respect is cross-cultural and universal ( Frei and Shaver, 2002 ; Hendrick et al., 2010 ) and has been described as fundamental in love ( Hendrick et al., 2011 ). It plays a cardinal role in interpersonal relations at all levels ( Hendrick et al., 2010 ). Indeed, it is essential in relationship commitment and satisfaction ( Hendrick and Hendrick, 2006 ) and relationship intimacy and attachment ( Alper, 2004 ; Hendrick et al., 2011 ).

Synergetic Interactions of the Four Factors

Connection and attraction.

Similarity, proximity, and familiarity are all important in connection because they promote attachment and a sense of oneness in a relationship ( Sullivan et al., 2011 ; Beckes et al., 2013 ). Research indicates that proximity ( Batool and Malik, 2010 ) and familiarity positively influence attraction ( Norton et al., 2015 ) and several lines of evidence suggests that people are attracted to those similar to themselves ( Sykes et al., 1976 ; Wetzel and Insko, 1982 ; Montoya et al., 2008 ; Batool and Malik, 2010 ; Collisson and Howell, 2014 ). Also, attraction mediates similarity and familiarity ( Moreland and Zajonc, 1982 ; Elbedweihy et al., 2016 ).

Respect and Trust

Evidence suggests that respect promotes trust ( Ali et al., 2012 ).

Connection, Respect, Trust, and Attraction

Trust affects attraction ( Singh et al., 2015 ). Trust and respect can mediate attitude similarity and promote attraction ( Singh et al., 2016 ).

So, although these factors can operate independently, evidence suggests that the weakening of one factor could negatively affect the others and the status of love. Similarly, the strengthening of one factor positively modulates the others and the status of love.

Relationships are dynamic and change as events and conditions in the environment change ( Berscheid, 2010 ). Love is associated with causal conditions that respond to these changes favorably or negatively ( Berscheid, 2010 ). In other words, as conditions change, and these factors become present, love is achieved and if they die, it fades. Figure 1 below explains how love grows and dies. Point C in the figure explains the variations in the intensity or levels of love and this variation is influenced by the strength of each factor. The stronger the presence of all factors, the higher the intensity and the lower, the weaker the intensity of love. The concept of non-love is similar to the “non-love” described in Sternberg’s triangular theory of love in which all components of love are absent ( Sternberg, 1986 ).

Description: (A) Presence of love (all factors are present). (B) Absence of love (state of non-love or state where all factors are latent or dormant). (C) Different levels of love due to variations in the four factors. (D) Movement from non-love toward love (developmental stage: at least one but not all four factors are present). (E) Movement away from love toward non-love (decline stage: at least one or more of the four factors are absent).

Application of the Quadruple Framework on Romantic, Brand and Parental Love

Romantic, parental and brand love have been chosen to demonstrate the role of these factors and their interactions in love because there is significant existing literature on them. However, they can be applied to understand love in all its forms.

Romantic Love

Attraction and romantic love.

Attraction involves both physical and personality traits ( Braxton-Davis, 2010 ; Karandashev and Fata, 2014 ). To this end, attraction could be subdivided into sexual or material and non-sexual or non-material attraction. Sexual or material attraction includes physical attributes such as beauty, aesthetics, appeal, wealth, etc. In contrast, non-sexual or non-material attraction includes characteristics such as personality, social status, power, humor, intelligence, character, confidence, temperament, honesty, good quality, kindness, integrity, etc. Both types of attraction are not mutually exclusive.

Romantic love has been described as a advanced form of human attraction system ( Fisher et al., 2005 ) and it fits with the passion component of Sternberg’s triangular theory of love which he described as the quickest to recruit ( Sternberg, 1986 ). Indeed, research indicates that physical attractiveness and sensual feelings are essential in romantic love and dating ( Brislin and Lewis, 1968 ; Regan and Berscheid, 1999 ; Luo and Zhang, 2009 ; Braxton-Davis, 2010 ; Ha et al., 2010 ; Guéguen and Lamy, 2012 ) and sexual attraction often provides the motivational spark that kickstarts a romantic relationship ( Gillath et al., 2008 ). Behavioral data suggest that love and sex drive follow complementary pathways in the brain ( Seshadri, 2016 ). Indeed, the neuroendocrine system for sexual attraction and attachment appears to work synergistically motivating individuals to both prefer a specific mating partner and to form an attachment to that partner ( Seshadri, 2016 ). Sex promotes the activity of hormones involved in love including arginine vasopressin in the ventral pallidum, oxytocin in the nucleus accumbens and stimulates dopamine release which consequently motivates preference for a partner and strengthens attachment or pair-bonding ( Seshadri, 2016 ).

Also, romantic love is associated with non-material attraction. Research indicates that many people are attracted to their romantic partner because of personality traits like generosity, kindness, warmth, humor, helpfulness, openness to new ideas ( Giles, 2015 , pp. 168–169). Findings from a research study on preferences in human mate selection indicate that personality traits such as kindness/considerate and understanding, exciting, and intelligent are strongly preferred in a potential mate ( Buss and Barnes, 1986 ). Indeed, character and physical attractiveness have been found to contribute jointly and significantly to romantic attraction ( McKelvie and Matthews, 1976 ).

Attraction is key to commitment in a romantic relationship ( Rusbult, 1980 ), indicating that without attraction a romantic relationship could lose its luster. Also, romantic attraction is weakened or declines as the reason for its presence declines or deteriorates. If attraction is sexual or due to material characteristics, then aging or any accident that compromises physical beauty would result in its decline ( Braxton-Davis, 2010 ). Loss of fortune or social status could also weaken attraction and increase tension in a relationship. Indeed, tensions about money increase marital conflicts ( Papp et al., 2009 ; Dew and Dakin, 2011 ) and predicted subsequent divorce ( Amato and Rogers, 1997 ).

Connection and Romantic Love

Connection or resonance fits with the intimacy, and commitment components of Sternberg’s triangular theory of love ( Sternberg, 1986 ). Connection in romantic love involves intimacy, friendship or companionship and caregiving and it is strengthened by novelty, proximity, communication, positive shared experiences, familiarity, and similarity. It is what creates a sense of oneness between romantic partners and it is expressed in the form of proximity seeking and maintenance, concern, and compassion ( Neto, 2012 ). Evidence suggests that deeper levels of emotional involvement or attachment increase commitment and cognitive interdependence or tendency to think about the relationship in a pluralistic manner, as reflected in the use of plural pronouns to describe oneself, romantic partner and relationship ( Agnew et al., 1998 ).

Research indicates that both sexual attraction and friendship are necessary for romantic love ( Meyers and Berscheid, 1997 ; Gillath et al., 2008 ; Berscheid, 2010 ), indicating that connection which is essential for companionship plays a key role in romantic love. A study on college students by Hendrick and Hendrick (1993) found that a significant number of the students described their romantic partner as their closest friend ( Hendrick and Hendrick, 1993 ), reinforcing the importance of friendship or companionship in romantic love.

Similarity along the lines of values, goals, religion, nationality, career, culture, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, language, etc. is essential in liking and friendship in romantic love ( Berscheid and Reis, 1998 ). Research indicates that a partner who shared similar values and interests were more likely to experience stronger love ( Jin et al., 2017 ). Indeed, the more satisfied individuals were with their friendships the more similar they perceived their friends to be to themselves ( Morry, 2005 ). Also, similarity influences perceptions of familiarity ( Moreland and Zajonc, 1982 ), and familiarity plays a role in the formation of attachment and connectedness because it signals safety and security ( Bowlby, 1977 ). Moreover, similarity and familiarity affect caregiving. Sprecher and Fehr (2005) , found compassion or caregiving were lower for strangers, and greatest for dating and marital relationships, indicating that similarity and familiarity enhance intimacy and positively influences caregiving ( Sprecher and Fehr, 2005 ).

Proximity through increased exposure is known to promote liking ( Saegert et al., 1973 ), familiarity and emotional connectedness ( Sternberg, 1986 ; Berscheid, 2010 ). Exposure through fun times and direct and frequent communication is essential to maintaining and strengthening attachment and connectedness ( Sternberg and Grajek, 1984 ). In Sternberg’s triangular theory, effective communication is described as essential and affects the intimacy component of a relationship ( Sternberg, 1986 ). Indeed, intimacy grows from a combination of mutual self-disclosure and interactions mediated by positive partner responsiveness ( Laurenceau et al., 1998 , 2005 ; Manne et al., 2004 ), indicating that positive feedback and fun times together strengthens connection.

Also, sexual activity is an important component of the reward system that reinforces emotional attachment ( Seshadri, 2016 ), indicating that sexual activity may increase emotional connectedness and intimacy. Over time in most relationships, predictability grows, and sexual satisfaction becomes readily available. This weakens the erotic and emotional experience associated with romantic love ( Berscheid, 2010 ). Research shows that a reduction in novelty due to the monotony of being with the same person for a long period is the reason for this decline in sexual attraction ( Freud and Rieff, 1997 , p. 57; Sprecher et al., 2006 , p. 467). According to Sternberg (1986) , the worst enemy of the intimacy component of love is stagnation. He explained that too much predictability can erode the level of intimacy in a close relationship ( Sternberg, 1986 ). So, novelty is essential to maintaining sexual attraction and strengthening connection in romantic love.

Jealousy and separation distress which are key features of romantic love ( Fisher et al., 2002b ), are actions to maintain and protect the emotional union and are expressions of a strong connection. Research has found a significant correlation between anxiety and love ( Hatfield et al., 1989 ) and a positive link between romantic love and jealousy in stable relationships ( Mathes and Severa, 1981 ; Aune and Comstock, 1991 ; Attridge, 2013 ; Gomillion et al., 2014 ). Indeed, individuals who feel strong romantic love tend to be more jealous or sensitive to threats to their relationship ( Orosz et al., 2015 ).

Connection in romantic love is weakened by distance, a dearth of communication, unsatisfactory sexual activity, divergences or dissimilarity of values and interests, monotony and too much predictability.

Trust and Romantic Love

Trust is the belief that a partner is, and will remain, reliable or dependable ( Cook, 2003 ). Trust in romantic love fits with the intimacy, and commitment components of Sternberg’s triangular theory of love which includes being able to count on the loved one in times of need, mutual understanding with the loved one, sharing of one’s self and one’s possessions with the loved one and maintaining the relationship ( Sternberg, 1986 ).

It has been proposed that love activates specific regions in the reward system which results in a reduction in emotional judgment and fear ( Seshadri, 2016 ). This reduced fear or trust has been identified as one of the most important characteristics of a romantic relationship and essential to fidelity, commitment, monogamy, emotional vulnerability, and intimacy ( Laborde et al., 2014 ). Indeed, trust can deepen intimacy, increase commitment and increase mutual monogamy, and make a person lower their guards in the belief that they are safe from harm ( Larzelere and Huston, 1980 ; Bauman and Berman, 2005 ). People with high trust in romantic relationships tend to expect that their partner will act in their interest causing them to prioritize relationship dependence over making themselves invulnerable from harm or self-protection ( Luchies et al., 2013 ). In contrast, people with low trust in their partner tend to be unsure about whether their partner will act in their interests and prioritize insulating themselves from harm over relationship dependence ( Luchies et al., 2013 ).

Trust takes time to grow into a romantic relationship. Indeed, people in a relationship come to trust their partners when they see that their partner’s action and behavior moves the relationship forward or acts in the interest of the relationship and not themself ( Wieselquist et al., 1999 ). Research indicates that trust is associated with mutual self-disclosure ( Larzelere and Huston, 1980 ), and positive partner responsiveness which are both essential to the experience of friendship and intimacy in romantic relationships ( Larzelere and Huston, 1980 ; Reis and Shaver, 1988 ; Laurenceau et al., 1998 ).

Also, trust influences caregiving and compassion. Evidence suggests that compassion is positively related to trust ( Salazar, 2015 ). Mutual communal responsiveness or caregiving in relationships in which partners attend to one another’s needs and welfare is done because they are confident that the other will do the same when or if their own needs arise ( Clark and Monin, 2006 ). Repeated acts of communal responsiveness given with no expectation of payback provide a partner with a sense of security and trust and increase the likelihood that they will be communally responsive if or when the need arises ( Clark and Monin, 2006 ), and contributes to a sense of love in romantic relationships ( Berscheid, 2010 ).

Loss or weakening of trust could spell the end of romantic love. Indeed, mistrust corrupts intimacy and often indicates that a relationship has ended or near its end ( LaFollette and Graham, 1986 ) and it makes mutual monogamy, and commitment difficult to achieve in a romantic relationship ( Towner et al., 2015 ). A study on individuals who had fallen out of romantic love with their spouse found that loss of trust and intimacy was part of the reason for the dissolution of love ( Sailor, 2013 ).

Respect and Romantic Love

Multiple lines of evidence suggest that respect is expected in both friendships and romantic relationships ( Gaines, 1994 , 1996 ). In romantic love, it entails consideration, admiration, high regard, and value for the loved one as a part of one’s life ( Sternberg and Grajek, 1984 ; Hendrick et al., 2011 ).

Gottman (1999) , found that the basis for a stable and satisfactory marital relationship is friendship filled with fondness and admiration ( Gottman, 1999 ). Respect is considered one of the most important things married couples want from their partner ( Gottman, 1994 ). Grote and Frieze (1994) , found that respect correlates with companionate or friendship love ( Grote and Frieze, 1994 ), indicating that respect is essential to intimacy and relationship satisfaction. Also, respect is positively correlated with passion, altruism, self-disclosure, and relationship overall satisfaction ( Frei and Shaver, 2002 ; Hendrick and Hendrick, 2006 ). It is associated with the tendency to overlook a partner’s negative behavior or respond with pro-relationship actions or compassion to their shortcomings ( Rusbult et al., 1998 ; Gottman, 1999 ).

Absence or a lack of respect could spell the end of romantic love. Research indicates that there is an expectation of mutual respect in friendship and most relationships and people reacted negatively when this expectation is violated ( Hendrick et al., 2011 ), indicating that a lack of respect could negatively affect commitment and attraction. Indeed, denial of respect is an important negative behavior in friendships and most relationships ( Gaines, 1994 , 1996 ) and a lack of respect is a violation of what it means to love one ‘s partner in a close romantic relationship ( Hendrick et al., 2011 ). Gottman (1993 , 1994) identified contempt, criticism, defensiveness, and stonewalling as four of the relationally destructive behavior and he labeled them as “the four horsemen of the apocalypse.”

Romantic love summary

Romantic love involves the interactions and synergistic interplay between respect, connection, trust, and attraction. All four must be present in love. Any event that results in the loss of any of these factors could cause romantic love to gradually decline and unless effort is made to replenish it, it will eventually fade or collapse. Romantic love is dynamic and requires significant investment from both partners to keep it alive.

Parental Love

Attraction and parental love.

Attraction plays an essential role in parental love and it could be material or non-material. Material attraction involves the child’s health, gender, accomplishments or success, and attractiveness. In contrast, non-material attraction includes traits such as intelligence, character, and other personality traits.

Evidence suggests that culture influences gender preference with attraction greater for sons in most cases ( Cronk, 1993 ). Indeed, mothers and fathers have been found to favor the more intelligent and more ambitious/industrious child ( Lauricella, 2009 ). Also, parental perception that investment in a child will cost more than the benefits to be gained from taking care of the child might influence negative behavior toward the child. Indeed, multiple lines of evidence suggest that parental unemployment increases the rates of child maltreatment and abuse ( Steinberg et al., 1981 ; Lindo et al., 2013 ). Research indicates that teen mothers who have poor social support reported greater unhappiness, were at greater risk for child abuse and often employed the use of physical punishment toward their child ( Haskett et al., 1994 ; de Paúl and Domenech, 2000 ).

Also, several studies have suggested that parents tended to favor healthy children ( Mann, 1992 ; Barratt et al., 1996 ; Hagen, 1999 ). However, when resources are plentiful, parents tend to invest equally in less healthy or high-risk children ( Beaulieu and Bugental, 2008 ), because they have abundant resources to go around without compromising the reproductive value of healthy children ( Lauricella, 2009 ).

Connection and Parental Love

Connection creates a sense of oneness between parent and child and involves caregiving, intimacy, and attachment. It is influenced by proximity, positive and unique shared experiences, and similarity along virtually every dimension between parent and child.

Proximity, and similarity increases attachment and intimacy between parent and child. Research shows that parents are perceived as favoring genetically related children ( Salmon et al., 2012 ), and evidence suggests that paternal resemblance predicted paternal favoritism ( Lauricella, 2009 ). Parental proximity and similarity to a biological child are unique because it is based on genes and blood. In contrast, intimacy between a parent and an adopted child is based solely on shared experiences and proximity and takes time to grow and on many occasions may not develop ( Hooks, 1990 ; Hughes, 1999 ).

Dissimilarities or discrepancy in values, attitudes, etc., can create problems between children and parents and can have a profound effect on their relationship. Indeed, evidence suggests that the rebel child tended to be less close to the parents ( Rohde et al., 2003 ). Research has found that adolescents who are less religious than their parents tend to experience lower-quality relationships with their parents which results in higher rates of both internalizing and externalizing symptoms ( Kim-Spoon et al., 2012 ). When parents and family members were very religious, and a child comes out as an atheist, relationship quality could suffer in the form of rejection, anger, despair, or an inability to relate to one another ( Zimmerman et al., 2015 ). A study of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youngsters, for patterns of disclosure of sexual orientation to families, found that those who had disclosed reported verbal and physical abuse by parents and family members ( D’Augelli et al., 1998 ). Honor killing of female children which have been reported in Pakistan and some parts of the Middle East because of deviation from traditional gender roles or crossing of social boundaries that are deemed as taboo in their culture ( Lindsey and Sarah, 2010 ), is another example of the negative effects of the discrepancy in values between parents and child.

Unique shared experiences between parent and child could increase connection. Bank (1988) observed that the development of favoritism seems to require that the “child’s conception or birth be unusual or stressful,” ( Bank, 1988 ). Evidence suggests that parents most favored child tended to be last-born child and this is linked to their unique position, vulnerability and neediness ( Rohde et al., 2003 ). Also, proximity, positive experiences and time spent together increases connection and intimacy. Research indicates that parents tend to give more love and support to the grown child they were historically closest to and got along with ( Siennick, 2013 ). A study of primiparous women found that mothers with greater contact with their infants were more reluctant to leave them with someone else, and engaged more intimately with their child ( Klaus et al., 1972 ).

Divorce could create distance between a parent and child, weakening connection and intimacy. Indeed, one of the outcomes of divorce is the lessening of contact between divorced non-custodial fathers and their children ( Appleby and Palkovitz, 2007 ), and this can reduce intimacy ( Guttmann and Rosenberg, 2003 ).

Also, parental separation distress, worry, and concern for their child’s welfare, academic performance, and future are expressions of connection and a lack thereof is a sign of poor connection. Indeed, the levels of concern and worry expressed between children and their parents influenced their perceptions of the relationship quality ( Hay et al., 2007 ).

Trust and Parental Love

Trust is essential to parental attachment, intimacy, and caregiving. When there is mistrust, attachment and intimacy between a parent and their child are disrupted or unable to blossom. In Africa and many parts of the world, there have been reports of children being condemned and abandoned by their parents simply because they are tagged as witches with mysterious evil powers ( Tedam, 2014 ; Bartholomew, 2015 ; Briggs and Whittaker, 2018 ). The tag of “witchcraft” stirs up fear and anger, causing the child to be perceived as a deadly threat which inevitably damages attachment, intimacy and eliminates the need for caregiving.

Research has found that firstborn children were most likely to be chosen as those to whom mothers would turn when facing personal problems or crises ( Suitor and Pillemer, 2007 ). This tendency may be linked to trust. Moreover, evidence suggests that the rebel child tended to be less close to the parents ( Rohde et al., 2003 ). In other words, the more obedient, and reliable child is likely to gain the confidence and intimacy of the parents. In contrast, the disobedient and unreliable child is excluded or kept at a distance. Also, trust and poor connection could influence inheritance and disinheritance decisions. Indeed, estrangement, alienation and disaffection of a parent toward a child could result in disinheritance ( Batts, 1990 ; Brashier, 1994 , 1996 ; Foster, 2001 ; Arroyo et al., 2016 ).

Respect and Parental Love

Respect in parental love entails treating the child with consideration and regard. This consideration and regard for the child are essential to intimacy, caregiving and attachment. Indeed, respect is foundational to a harmonious relationship between parent and child ( Dixon et al., 2008 ). Evidence suggests that humans possess an innate behavioral system that leads them to form an attachment to a familiar person who provides care, comfort, and protection ( Harlow, 1958 ; Bowlby, 1989 ). Repeated acts of caregiving contribute to a sense of love in all types of relationships ( Berscheid, 2010 ), reinforcing the role of parental caregiving in fostering intimacy and attachment with the child.

Taking care of an infant’s needs, and making sure they are safe and well, all fall under consideration and regard for the child. Child abuse and neglect ( Tedam, 2014 ; Bartholomew, 2015 ; Briggs and Whittaker, 2018 ), is a display of a lack of consideration for the child’s need.

Also, respect in parental love involves admiration. Research has found that fathers treated more ambitious/industrious sons with high regard, and both parents favored the more intelligent and more ambitious/industrious daughters ( Lauricella, 2009 ) indicating that a child that engages in activities or behavior that is highly regarded by their parents may gain favor with their parents, strengthening intimacy and vice versa.

Parental love summary

Parental love involves the interactions and synergistic interplay between respect, connection, trust, and attraction. Any event that results in the loss of any of these factors could cause parental love to gradually decline. In many cases, the behavior and actions of a child significantly influence parental love.

Brand love has been defined as the level of passionate emotional attachment a satisfied or happy consumer has for a brand and evidence suggests it is very similar to interpersonal love ( Russo et al., 2011 ).

Attraction and Brand Love

Attraction plays an essential role in brand love. Material attraction for a brand includes attributes like superior design, quality, and aesthetics, price, benefits, etc. Non-material attraction involves social status symbol, brand personality, uniqueness, distinctiveness, user experience, image, etc. evidence suggests that when talking about loved brands, people often talk passionately about the brand’s many attractive qualities such as its exceptional performance, good-looking design, value for money, and other positive attributes ( Fournier, 1998 ; Whang et al., 2004 ; Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006 ; Batra et al., 2012 ). Research on brand love has found that brand attractive attributes such as prestige or uniqueness influence brand passion which affects relevant factors such as purchase intention ( Bauer et al., 2007 ).

Also, brand attraction influences brand loyalty, and commitment. Indeed, research indicates that brand benefits influences brand loyalty or commitment ( Huang et al., 2016 ). Brand personality (image, distinctiveness, and self-expressive value) is strongly associated with brand identification and loyalty ( Kim et al., 2001 ; Elbedweihy et al., 2016 ).

Connection and Brand Love

Connection is essential to brand love. It involves brand attachment, commitment, and intimacy and it is strengthened by brand identification, image, familiarity or awareness, proximity, length or frequency of usage and similarity or congruences along virtually every dimension including values, lifestyle, goals, etc. between brand and customer. Brand awareness which means brand familiarity has been described as essential for people to identify with a brand ( Pascual and Académico, 2015 ), and it indirectly affects current purchases ( Esch et al., 2006 ).

Also, brand identification promotes a sense of oneness between a brand and a customer strengthening commitment and it is driven by brand self-similarity, brand prestige and brand distinctiveness ( Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2008 ). Indeed, brand identification contributes to the development of brand love and brand loyalty ( Alnawas and Altarifi, 2016 ) and brand image and identification influence loyalty and positive word of mouth ( Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006 ; Batra et al., 2012 ; Anggraeni and Rachmanita, 2015 ). Brand identity, values and lifestyle similarities to those of the customer appear to have a strong and significant relationship with brand love ( Batra et al., 2012 ; Rauschnabel and Ahuvia, 2014 ; Alnawas and Altarifi, 2016 ; Elbedweihy et al., 2016 ). Findings from research suggest that customer-to-customer similarity and sense of community drive consumer brand identification, loyalty, and engagement ( Bergkvist and Bech-Larsen, 2010 ; Elbedweihy et al., 2016 ).

Moreover, proximity and interaction play a role in brand love. Indeed, the duration of the relationship between a customer and a brand is essential in brand love ( Albert et al., 2007 ). Fournier (1998) , discussed interdependence which involved frequent brand interactions as necessary for a strong brand relationship ( Fournier, 1998 ). Similarly, Batra et al. (2012) found that having a long-term relationship, positive emotional connection and frequent interactions with a brand was an important aspect of brand love ( Batra et al., 2012 ). Indeed, shared experiences and history between a person and a brand can increase their emotional attachment, make the brand to become an important part of the person’s identity narrative and increases their loyalty to the brand ( Thomson et al., 2005 ; Pedeliento et al., 2016 ).

Just like romantic love, concern and worry and proximity seeking, or maintenance are an expression of emotional connectedness to the brand. Indeed, anticipated separation distress has been described as a core element of brand love ( Batra et al., 2012 ), and consumers are likely to feel strong desires to maintain proximity with their loved objects, even feeling “separation distress” when they are distanced from them ( Thomson et al., 2005 ; Park et al., 2010 ).

Also, novelty through continued innovation is vital to maintaining and strengthening both attraction and connection. According to the Harvard business review, the relationship between brand and consumer go through “ruts” and to “keep the spark” alive, innovation and news are essential ( Halloran, 2014 ). Research indicates that innovation plays a role in brand equity and it impacts brand identification or resonance ( Sinha, 2017 ).

Lack of brand familiarity or awareness, poor or negative user experience, a dearth of innovation and increased dissimilarities in values and lifestyles between brand and consumer can all weaken brand connection.

Trust and Brand Love

Trust is essential to brand attachment, intimacy, and commitment. It involves confidence and reliability, or dependability of the brand and it is influenced by brand image, familiarity, values, user experience, and quality. Indeed, brand trust directly influences brand love ( Turgut and Gultekin, 2015 ; Meisenzahl, 2017 ) and a strong relationship exists between brand love and brand trust and identification ( Albert and Merunka, 2013 ). Evidence suggests that brand familiarity influences brand trust ( Ha and Perks, 2005 ) and brand trust and experience, positively influence brand attachment ( Erciş et al., 2012 ; Chinomona, 2013 ; Chinomona and Maziriri, 2017 ).

Also, brand trust affects brand purchase, loyalty, and commitment. Evidence suggests that a strong relationship exists between brand love and brand trust, brand commitment, positive word of mouth, and willingness to pay a higher price for the brand ( Albert and Merunka, 2013 ). Research indicates that brand trust positively affects brand loyalty ( Setyawan and Kussudiyarsana, 2015 ), directly influences brand purchase intentions ( Yasin and Shamim, 2013 ) and positively influences current and future purchases ( Erciş et al., 2012 ). Indeed, more than any other factor, brand trust has been identified as essential for future purchases of a brand ( Esch et al., 2006 ). It is essential in determining purchase loyalty and attitudinal loyalty and it plays a role in brand market share ( Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001 ). Brand trust affects both affective and continuance commitment and affective commitment influences repurchase intention and loyalty ( Erciş et al., 2012 ).

Brand quality is essential to brand trust and love. Indeed, Fournier (1998) , discussed the role of brand quality in brand love and highlighted the role of trust in relationship satisfaction and strength ( Fournier, 1998 ). Also, brand trust has been found to positively affect resistance to negative information and repurchase intention ( Turgut and Gultekin, 2015 ).

Brand trust is weakened by poor user experience, brand quality, brand image, and a lack of brand familiarity.

Respect and Brand Love

Brand respect is essential in brand love and plays an important role in brand attachment, intimacy, and commitment. It is influenced by brand identification, values, image, experience, and quality. Brand respect is displayed by the customer in the form of high regard, admiration for the brand, brand loyalty and consideration or tolerance of negative information. Indeed, brand familiarity positively affects brand respect ( Zhou, 2017 ), indicating that brand familiarity increases regard for a brand. Evidence suggests that brand image positively influences brand respect and love ( Cho, 2011 ), indicating that brand image modulates a customer’s regard and admiration for a brand.

Brand respect influences brand commitment and loyalty. Indeed, a strong relationship has been found between brand respect and brand loyalty ( Cho, 2011 ) and brand admiration results in greater brand loyalty, stronger brand advocacy, and higher brand equity ( Park et al., 2016 ). Brand respect affects the behavioral outcomes of brand love such as affective commitment, and willingness to pay a price premium ( Garg et al., 2016 ; Park et al., 2016 ).

Also, evidence suggests that customers’ admiration or high regard for a brand contributes to why they tend to ignore negative information about the brand ( Elbedweihy et al., 2016 ). Fournier (1998) , included respect as one of the components of brand partner quality. This means that respect is one of the factors that reflects the consumer’s evaluation of the brand’s performance ( Fournier, 1998 ).

A lack of respect could negatively influence the relationship between a brand and a customer. Indeed, people react negatively when the expectation of respect is violated ( Hendrick et al., 2011 ) and a violation of expectation between brand and customer has been found to contribute to brand hate ( Zarantonello et al., 2016 ).

Brand love summary

Brand love involves the interactions and synergistic interplay between respect, connection, trust, and attraction. Any event that results in the loss of any of these factors could cause brand love to gradually decline and unless effort is made to replenish it, it will eventually fade or collapse. Brand love is dynamic and requires significant investment from the brand to keep it alive.

Strengths and Advances Made by the Quadruple Theory

The quadruple theory builds on many of the strengths of previous theories of love and it applies a temporal approach that has been proposed as the best way to understand love ( Berscheid, 2010 ). It goes further than previous theories for several reasons. Firstly, it could potentially be applied to any form of love although, only brand, romantic and parental love were discussed in this paper due to the paucity of scholarly articles on other forms of love. One of the reasons current love scales and approaches have been unable to be applied in all forms of love ( Hendrick and Hendrick, 1989 ; Whitley, 1993 ; Sternberg, 1997 ; Masuda, 2003 ; Graham and Christiansen, 2009 ), is because they capture only a part of the ACC model, unlike the quadruple framework which fully captures it.

Unlike previous theories, the quadruple theory’s application of the complex factor of connection/resonance gives it an edge in furthering our understanding of love. Proximity, positive shared experience, familiarity, and similarity are vital to connection and connection has the most profound influence on all the other factors.

Also, the dynamism and variation of these factors provide a fresh way to understand love from its development to collapse. As Figure 1 shows, love tends to take time to mature in a relationship and can die as these factors rise and decline. Figure 1 shows that variations in the presence of these factors represent different levels of love. Love in any relationship is influenced by the events in the environment it is embedded, and it responds favorably or negatively to these changes. Indeed, people get sick, old, lose their finances, travel in search of greener pastures creating distance, develop new interests different from their partner’s and all these influences the presence and absence of love. One brand becomes more innovative, improves its product quality and users experience over another and people gradually love it more than the one they previously loved. In other words, love is very dynamic and may be divided into high, moderate and low. Another point highlighted in Figure 1 is that the absence of one factor represents the absence of love and only the presence of all factors represents the presence of love. Indeed, the decline of a factor can be replenished in response to changes in the environment causing the reestablishment of love. Trust could decline but attraction and respect remain and over time trust could be replenished.

This dynamic understanding of love implies that it can be nurtured and sustained. As an example, for a brand to be loved and to maintain that love, it must make products that are attractive (appealing). It must be able to connect to its target customers by reaching out through adverts to achieve familiarity and it must ensure that its values, goals, actions are consistently similar to those of its customer base. Also, it must ensure its services and products and actions promote and maintain trust with its customers. It must respect (value) its customer’s interests and ensure that its services and products continue to receive the admiration of its customers. Table 2 describes how brand love can be nurtured and preserved.

Brand love can be nurtured and maintained.

Using this framework, a love scale or algorithm could be developed to ascertain the presence or absence of love in any relationship. Such a scale must effectively capture these four factors and must consider the type of love being calculated in its approach. As an example, in trying to create a scale for romantic love, sexual attraction, and activity may be important for attraction and connection (depending on the age of the partners) but would be unnecessary in the calculation of brand or parental love.

Major Challenges for the Theory

One of the biggest challenges the theory faces is the lack of psychometric data to prove many of its claims. Most of its arguments are based on decades of psychological data, but its lack of psychometric data weakens the theory significantly. Also, the entire premise of the theory is based on the ACC model, which has not been validated as essential or foundational to understanding love. Perhaps, something else needs to be added to the model that the theory may have missed. The argument that the quadruple theory captures the ACC model better than previous theories on love is an argument that has not been validated, and it remains to be seen if this is true. Also, the argument that it can be applied to all forms of love apart from the three discussed remains to be tested and verified.

Gaps currently exist in our understanding of love and evidences from the existing literature show that a framework that can be applied to all forms of love is needed. The quadruple theory hopes to be that framework. It is likely to broaden our understanding of the complex nature of love. It could make love less complex by making it something that can be cultivated or nurtured, regulated and preserved. Future research should consider the modulatory roles of peptides, neurotransmitters, and hormones on these factors and their influence on love as well as the integrated parts of the brain that modulates all these factors and how they work synergistically in different stages of love.

It is important to note that love is universal and applies to people of all cultures, races, ethnicities, religion and sexual orientations. Indeed, romantic love as described by the quadruple theory applies equally to heterosexual relationships and to the relationships of people in the LGTBQ community.

In conclusion, culture has a monumental influence on what people feel, think, and how they behave toward other people and things in their environment ( Karandashev, 2015 ; Ching Hei and David, 2018 ). So, it can be considered a modulating factor on the factors discussed and on love.

Author Contributions

The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

• Agnew C. R., Van Lange P. A. M., Rusbult C. E., Langston C. A. (1998). Cognitive interdependence: commitment and the mental representation of close relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74 939–954. 10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.939 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ainsworth M. D. (1985). Attachments across the life span. Bull. N. Y. Acad. Med. 61 792–812. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Albert N., Merunka D. (2013). The role of brand love in consumer-brand relationships. J. Consum. Mark. 30 258–266. 10.1108/07363761311328928 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Albert N., Merunka D., Valette-Florence P. (2007). When consumers love their brands: exploring the concept and its dimensions. J. Bus. Res. 61 1062–1075. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.09.014 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ali S. H. S., Mansur N., Abdullah Z. (2012). Analyzing the issue of respect and trust: determining the mediating role of religion. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 58 614–623. 10.1016/J.SBSPRO.2012.09.1039 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alnawas I., Altarifi S. (2016). Exploring the role of brand identification and brand love in generating higher levels of brand loyalty. J. Vacat. Mark. 22 111–128. 10.1177/1356766715604663 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alper G. (2004). Voices from the unconscious. J. Loss Trauma 10 73–81. 10.1080/15325020490890660 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amato P. R., Rogers S. J. (1997). A longitudinal study of marital problems and subsequent divorce. J. Marriage Fam. 59 612–624. 10.2307/353949 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anggraeni A., Rachmanita (2015). Effects of brand love, personality and image on word of mouth; the case of local fashion brands among young consumers. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 211 442–447. 10.1016/J.SBSPRO.2015.11.058 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Appleby D. W., Palkovitz R. (2007). Factors Influencing a Divorced Father’ s Involvement with His Children. Available online at: http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/ccfs_fac_pubs/7 (accessed February 22, 2020). [ Google Scholar ]
• Aron A., Fisher H., Mashek D. J., Strong G., Li H., Brown L. L. (2005). Reward, motivation, and emotion systems associated with early-stage intense romantic love. J. Neurophysiol. 94 327–337. 10.1152/jn.00838.2004 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arroyo E., Amayuelas I., Amorós E. F. (2016). Kinship bonds and emotional ties: lack of a family relationship as ground for disinheritance. Eur. Rev. Priv. Law 2 203–222. [ Google Scholar ]
• Attridge M. (2013). Jealousy and relationship closeness. SAGE Open 3 : 215824401347605 . 10.1177/2158244013476054 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aune K. S., Comstock J. (1991). Experience and expression of jealousy: comparison between friends and romantics. Psychol. Rep. 69 315–319. 10.2466/pr0.1991.69.1.315 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bank S. P. (1988). Favoritism. J. Child. Contemp. Soc. 19 77–89. 10.1300/J274v19n03_05 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barratt M. S., Roach M. A., Leavitt L. A. (1996). The impact of low-risk prematurity on maternal behaviour and toddler outcomes. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 19 581–602. 10.1177/016502549601900308 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bartels A., Zeki S. (2000). The neural basis of romantic love. Neuroreport 11 3829–3834. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bartholomew L. (2015). Child abuse linked to beliefs in witchcraft. Trans. Soc. Rev. 5 193–198. 10.1080/21931674.2015.1028809 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Batool S., Malik N. I. (2010). Role of attitude similarity and proximity in interpersonal attraction among friends. Int. J. Innov. Manage. Technol. 1 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Batra R., Ahuvia A., Bagozzi R. P. (2012). Brand love. J. Mark. 76 1–16. 10.1509/jm.09.0339 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Batts D. A. (1990). I Didn’t ask to be born: the American law of disinheritance and a proposal for change to a sytem of protected inheritance recommended citation. Hastings L. J. 41 1197–1270. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bauer H. H., Heinrich D., Martin I. (2007). “ How to create high emotional consumer-brand relationships? The causalities of brand passion ,” in Proceedings of the Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy (ANZMAC) Conference 2007 , Dunedin, 2189–2198. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bauman L. J., Berman R. (2005). Adolescent relationships and condom use: trust, love and commitment. AIDS Behav. 9 211–222. 10.1007/s10461-005-3902-2 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beaulieu D. A., Bugental D. (2008). Contingent parental investment: an evolutionary framework for understanding early interaction between mothers and children. Evol. Hum. Behav. 29 249–255. 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.01.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beauregard M., Courtemanche J., Paquette V., St-Pierre É. L. (2009). The neural basis of unconditional love. Psychiatry Res. Neuroimaging 172 93–98. 10.1016/j.pscychresns.2008.11.003 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beckes L., Coan J. A., Hasselmo K. (2013). Familiarity promotes the blurring of self and other in the neural representation of threat. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 8 670–677. 10.1093/scan/nss046 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bergkvist L., Bech-Larsen T. (2010). Two studies of consequences and actionable antecedents of brand love. J. Brand Manage. 17 504–518. 10.1057/bm.2010.6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berscheid E. (2010). Love in the fourth dimension. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 61 1–25. 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100318 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berscheid E., Hatfield E. (1978). Interpersonal Attraction. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berscheid E. A., Reis H. T. (1998). “ Attraction and close relationships ,” in The Handbook of Social Psychology , 4th Edn, Vol. 2 eds Gilbert D. T., Fiske S. T., Lindzey G. (Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill; ), 193–281. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bidmon S. (2017). How does attachment style influence the brand attachment – brand trust and brand loyalty chain in adolescents? Int. J. Advert. 36 164–189. 10.1080/02650487.2016.1172404 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowlby J. (1973). “ Affectional bonds: their nature and origin ,” in Loneliness: The Experience of Emotional and Social Isolation , ed. Weiss R. S. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; ), 38–52. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowlby J. (1977). The making and breaking of affectional bonds: aetiology and psychopathology in light of attachment theory. Br. J. Psychiatry 130 201–210. 10.1136/bmj.a3133 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowlby J. (1988). A SECURE BASE Parent-Child Attachment and Healthy Human Development A Member of the. New York, NY: Perseus Books Group. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowlby J. (1989). The Making & Breaking of Affectional Bonds. London: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brashier R. C. (1994). Disinheritance and the modern family. Case West. Reserve L. Rev. 83 : 121 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Brashier R. C. (1996). Protecting the child from disinheritance: Must Louisiana stand alone? Repository citation protecting the child from disinheritance: Must Louisiana Stand Alone? Louis. L. Rev. 57 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Braxton-Davis P. (2010). The social psychology of love and attraction. McNair Sch. J. 14 5–12. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bretherton I. (1992). The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth. Dev. Psychol. 28 759–775. 10.1037/0012-1649.28.5.759 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Briggs S., Whittaker A. (2018). Protecting Children from Faith-Based Abuse through Accusations of Witchcraft and Spirit Possession: Understanding Contexts and Informing Practice. Br. J. Soc. Work 48 2157–2175. 10.1093/bjsw/bcx155 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brislin R. W., Lewis S. A. (1968). Dating and physical attractiveness: replication. Psychol. Rep. 22 976–976. 10.2466/pr0.1968.22.3.976 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Burgess E. W., Wallin P. (1954). Courtship, Engagement, and Marriage , 1st Edn New York, NY: Lippincott. [ Google Scholar ]
• Burkett J. P., Young L. J. (2012). The behavioral, anatomical and pharmacological parallels between social attachment, love and addiction. Psychopharmacology 224 1–26. 10.1007/s00213-012-2794-x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buss D. M., Barnes M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 50 559–570. 10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.559 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Byrne D., Griffitt W. (1973). Interpersonal attraction. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 24 317–336. 10.1146/annurev.ps.24.020173.001533 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Byrne D. E. (1971). The Attraction Paradigm. New York, NY: Academic Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cacioppo J. T., Berntson G. G., Lorig T. S., Norris C. J., Rickett E., Nusbaum H. (2003). Just because you’re imaging the brain doesn’t mean you can stop using your head: a primer and set of first principles. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 85 650–661. 10.1037/0022-3514.85.4.650 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Canterberry M., Gillath O. (2012). Attachment and Caregiving Functions, Interactions, and Implications. Available online at: https://gillab.ku.edu/sites/gillab.drupal.ku.edu/files/docs/canterberrygillathchp14.pdf (accessed February 22, 2020). [ Google Scholar ]
• Carnelley K. B., Pietromonaco P. R., Jaffe K. (1996). Attachment, caregiving, and relationship functioning in couples: Effects of self and partner. Pers. Relat. 3 257–278. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1996.tb00116.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carroll B. A., Ahuvia A. C. (2006). Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love. Mark. Lett. 17 79–89. 10.2307/40216667 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carter C. S. (1998). Neuroendocrine perspectives on social attachment and love. Psychoneuroendocrinology 23 779–818. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chaudhuri A., Holbrook M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty. J. Mark. 65 81–93. 10.1509/jmkg.65.2.81.18255 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ching Hei K., David M. K. (2018). How love is perceived by malaysian malay children. Int. J. Linguist. Lit. Transl. 1 80–104. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chinomona E., Maziriri E. (2017). The influence of brand trust, brand familiarity and brand experience on brand attachment: a case of consumers in the Gauteng Province of South Africa. J. Econ. Behav. Stud. 9 69–81. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chinomona R. (2013). The influence of brand experience on brand satisfaction, Trust And Attachment In South Africa. Int. Bus. Econ. Res. J. 12 1303–1316. 10.19030/iber.v12i10.8138 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cho E. (2011). Development of a Brand Image Scale and the Impact of Lovemarks on Brand Equity. Ph.D. dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames, IA. [ Google Scholar ]
• Clark M. S., Mills J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 37 12–24. 10.1037/0022-3514.37.1.12 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clark M. S., Monin J. K. (2006). “ Giving and receiving communal responsiveness as love ,” in The New Psychology of Love , eds Sternberg R. J., Weis K. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; ), 200–221. [ Google Scholar ]
• Collins N. L., Feeney B. C. (2000). A safe haven: an attachment theory perspective on support seeking and caregiving in intimate relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 78 1053–1073. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Collisson B., Howell J. L. (2014). The liking-similarity effect: perceptions of similarity as a function of liking. J. Soc. Psychol. 154 384–400. 10.1080/00224545.2014.914882 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cook K. S. (2003). Trust in Society. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. [ Google Scholar ]
• Costa D. L., Kahn M. E. (2003a). Civic engagement and community heterogeneity: an economist’s perspective. Perspect. Polit. 1 103–111. 10.1017/S1537592703000082 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Costa D. L., Kahn M. E. (2003b). Understanding the American Decline in Social Capital, 1952-1998. Kyklos 56 17–46. 10.1111/1467-6435.00208 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cronk L. (1993). Parental favoritism toward daughters. Am. Sci. 81 272–279. 10.2307/29774922 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• D’Augelli A. R., Hershberger S. L., Pilkington N. W. (1998). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth and their families: disclosure of sexual orientation and its consequences. Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 68 361–371. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Boer A., Van Buel E. M., Ter Horst G. J. (2012). Love is more than just a kiss: a neurobiological perspective on love and affection. Neuroscience 201 114–124. 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2011.11.017 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• de Paúl J., Domenech L. (2000). Childhood history of abuse and child abuse potential in adolescent mothers: a longitudinal study. Child Abuse Negl. 24 701–713. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dew J. P., Dakin J. (2011). Financial disagreements and marital conflict tactics. J. Financial Ther. 2 : 7 10.4148/jft.v2i1.1414 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dixon S. V., Graber J. A., Brooks-Gunn J. (2008). The roles of respect for parental authority and parenting practices in parent-child conflict among African American, Latino, and European American families. J. Fam. Psychol. 22 1–10. 10.1037/0893-3200.22.1.1 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elbedweihy A. M., Jayawardhena C., Elsharnouby M. H., Elsharnouby T. H. (2016). Customer relationship building: the role of brand attractiveness and consumer–brand identification. J. Bus. Res. 69 2901–2910. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.059 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Erciş A., Ünal S., Candan F. B., Yıldırım H. (2012). The effect of brand satisfaction, trust and brand commitment on loyalty and repurchase intentions. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 58 1395–1404. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.1124 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Esch F., Langner T., Schmitt B. H., Geus P. (2006). Are brands forever? How brand knowledge and relationships affect current and future purchases. J. Prod. Brand Manage. 15 98–105. 10.1108/10610420610658938 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Esch T., Stefano G. B. (2005). The neurobiology of love. Neuroendocrinol. Lett. 26 175–192. 10.2174/157340005774575037 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Feeney B. C., Collins N. L. (2001). Predictors of caregiving in adult Intimate relationships: an attachment theoretical perspective. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 80 972–994. 10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.972 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Feeney J. A., Noller P. (1990). Attachment Style as a Predictor of Adult Romantic Relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 58 281–291. 10.1016/j.psychres.2018.01.010 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fehr B. (1994). Prototype-based assessment of laypeople’s views of love. Pers. Relat. 1 309–331. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1994.tb00068.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Feldman R. (2017). The neurobiology of human attachments. Trends Cogn. Sci. 21 80–99. 10.1016/j.tics.2016.11.007 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fisher H. (2005). Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Co. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fisher H., Aron A., Brown L. L. (2005). Romantic love: an fMRI study of a neural mechanism for mate choice. J. Comp. Neurol. 493 58–62. 10.1002/cne.20772 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fisher H. E., Aron A., Brown L. L. (2006). Romantic love: a mammalian brain system for mate choice. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 361 2173–2186. 10.1098/rstb.2006.1938 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fisher H. E., Aron A., Mashek D., Li H., Strong G., Brown L. L. (2002a). The neural mechanisms of mate choice: a hypothesis. Neuro Endocrinol. Lett. 23 ( Suppl. 4 ), 92–97. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fisher H. E., Aron A., Mashek D., Li H., Brown L. L. (2002b). Defining the brain systems of lust, romantic attraction, and attachment. Arch. Sex. Behav. 31 413–419. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fisher H. E., Brown L. L., Aron A., Strong G., Mashek D. (2010). Reward, addiction, and emotion regulation systems associated with rejection in love. J. Neurophysiol. 104 51–60. 10.1152/jn.00784.2009 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fitzpatrick J., Lafontaine M.-F. (2017). Attachment, trust, and satisfaction in relationships: investigating actor, partner, and mediating effects. Pers. Relat. 24 640–662. 10.1111/pere.12203 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Foster F. H. (2001). The family paradigm of inheritance law, 80 N.C. N. C. L. Rev. 80 12–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fournier S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer research. J. Consum. Res. 24 343–373. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frei J. R., Shaver P. R. (2002). Respect in close relationships: prototype definition, self-report assessment, and initial correlates. Pers. Relat. 9 121–139. 10.1111/1475-6811.00008 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Freud S., Rieff P. (1997). Sexuality and the Psychology of Love. New York, NY: Collier Books. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gaines S. O. (1994). Exchange of respect-denying behaviors among male-female friendships. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 11 5–24. 10.1177/0265407594111001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gaines S. O. (1996). Impact of interpersonal traits and gender-role compliance on interpersonal resource exchange among dating and engaged/married couples. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 13 241–261. 10.1177/0265407596132005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Garg R., Mukherjee J., Biswas S., Kataria A. (2016). An investigation into the concept of brand love and its proximal and distal covariates. J. Relat. Mark. 15 135–153. 10.1080/15332667.2016.1209047 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Giles J. (2015). Sexual attraction: the psychology of allure. Praeger 351 23–25. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gillath O., Mikulincer M., Birnbaum G. E., Shaver P. R. (2008). When sex primes love: subliminal sexual priming motivates relationship goal pursuit. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 34 1057–1069. 10.1177/0146167208318141 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gomillion S., Gabriel S., Murray S. L. (2014). A friend of yours is no friend of mine. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 5 636–643. 10.1177/1948550614524447 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gottman J. (1993). A theory of marital dissolution and stability. J. Fam. Psychol. 7 57–75. 10.1037/0893-3200.7.1.57 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gottman J. (1994). What Predicts Divorce?: The Relationship Between Marital Processes and Marital Outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gottman J. M. (1999). The Marriage Clinic: A Scientifically-Based Marital Therapy. New York, NY: W.W. Norton. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grabill C. M., Kent K. A. K. (2000). Attachment style and intimacy in friendship. Pers. Relat. 7 363–378. [ Google Scholar ]
• Graham J. M., Christiansen K. (2009). The reliability of romantic love: a reliability generalization meta-analysis. Pers. Relat. 16 49–66. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2009.01209.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grant-Jacob J. A. (2016). Love at first sight. Front. Psychol. 7 : 1113 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01113 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grote N. K., Frieze I. H. (1994). The measurement of friendship-based love in intimate relationships. Pers. Relat. 1 275–300. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1994.tb00066.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gu R., Huang W., Camilleri J., Xu P., Wei P., Eickhoff S. B., et al. (2019). Love is analogous to money in human brain: COORDINATE-based and functional connectivity meta-analyses of social and monetary reward anticipation. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 100 108–128. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.02.017 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guéguen N., Lamy L. (2012). Men’s social status and attractiveness. Swiss J. Psychol. 71 157–160. 10.1024/1421-0185/a000083 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guttmann J., Rosenberg M. (2003). Emotional intimacy and children’s adjustment: a comparison between single-parent divorced and intact families. Educ. Psychol. 23 457–472. 10.1080/01443410303213 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ha H.-Y., Perks H. (2005). Effects of consumer perceptions of brand experience on the web: brand familiarity, satisfaction and brand trust. J. Consum. Behav. 4 438–452. 10.1002/cb.29 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ha T., Overbeek G., Engels R. C. M. E. (2010). Effects of attractiveness and social status on dating desire in heterosexual adolescents: an experimental study. Arch. Sex. Behav. 39 1063–1071. 10.1007/s10508-009-9561-z [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hagen E. (1999). The functions of postpartum depression. Evol. Hum. Behav. 20 325–359. [ Google Scholar ]
• Halloran T. (2014). The Eight Phases of Brand Love. Available online at: https://hbr.org/2014/02/the-eight-phases-of-brand-love (accessed February 22, 2020). [ Google Scholar ]
• Harlow H. F. (1958). Classics in the History of Psychology. New York, NY: York University. [ Google Scholar ]
• Haskett M. E., Johnson C. A., Miller J. W. (1994). Individual differences in risk of child abuse by adolescent mothers: assessment in the perinatal period. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 35 461–476. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hatfield E., Brinton C., Cornelius J. (1989). Passionate love and anxiety in young adolescents. Motiv. Emot. 13 271–289. 10.1007/BF00995539 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hatfield E., Cacioppo J. T., Rapson R. L. (1994). Emotional contagion. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2 96–99. 10.1111/1467-8721.ep10770953 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hatfield E., Sprecher S. (1986). Measuring passionate love in intimate relationships. J. Adolesc. 9 383–410. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hay E. L., Fingerman K. L., Lefkowitz E. S. (2007). The experience of worry in parent–adult child relationships. Pers. Relat. 14 605–622. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00174.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hazan C., Shaver P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 52 511–524. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hendrick C., Hendrick S. (1986). A theory and method of love. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 50 392–402. 10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.392 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hendrick C., Hendrick S. S. (1989). Research on love: Does it measure up? J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 56 784–794. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hendrick C., Hendrick S. S., Zacchilli T. L. (2011). Respect and love in romantic relationships. Actas Investig. Psicol. 1 316–329. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hendrick S. S., Hendrick C. (1993). Lovers as friends. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 10 459–466. 10.1177/0265407593103011 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hendrick S. S., Hendrick C. (2006). Measuring respect in close relationships. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 23 881–899. 10.1177/0265407506070471 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hendrick S. S., Hendrick C., Logue E. M. (2010). Respect and the family. J. Fam. Theory Rev. 2 126–136. 10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00046.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Honari B., Saremi A. A. (2015). The study of relationship between attachment styles and obsessive love style. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 165 152–159. 10.1016/J.SBSPRO.2014.12.617 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hooks P. J. (1990). The real mother-issues in adoption. Jefferson J. Psychiatry 8 : 8 10.29046/JJP.008.2.005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huang S.-M., Fang S.-R., Fang S.-C., Huang C.-C. (2016). The influences of brand benefits on brand loyalty: intermediate mechanisms. Aust. J. Manage. 41 141–160. 10.1177/0312896214553516 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hughes D. A. (1999). Adopting children with attachment problems. Child Welf. 78 541–560. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jin W., Xiang Y., Lei M. (2017). The deeper the love, the deeper the hate. Front. Psychol. 8 : 1940 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01940 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Karandashev V. (2015). Unit 5 social psychology and culture subunit 4 interpersonal and intergroup relations article 2 6-1-2015 recommended citation Karandashev. Online Read. Psychol. Cult. 5 10.9707/2307-0919.1135 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Karandashev V., Fata B. (2014). Change in physical attraction in early romantic relationships. Interpers. Int. J. Pers. Relatsh. 8 257–267. 10.5964/ijpr.v8i2.167 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim C. K., Han D., Park S.-B. (2001). The effect of brand personality and brand identification on brand loyalty: applying the theory of social identification. Jpn. Psychol. Res. 43 195–206. 10.1111/1468-5884.00177 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim-Spoon J., Longo G. S., McCullough M. E. (2012). Adolescents who are less religious than their parents are at risk for externalizing and internalizing symptoms: the mediating role of parent-adolescent relationship quality. J. Fam. Psychol. 26 636–641. 10.1037/a0029176 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Klaus M. H., Jerauld R., Kreger N. C., McAlpine W., Steffa M., Kennell J. H. (1972). Maternal attachment. N. Engl. J. Med. 286 460–463. 10.1056/NEJM197203022860904 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kunce L. J., Shaver P. R. (1994). “ An attachment-theoretical approach to caregiving in romantic relationships ,” in Advances in Personal Relationships, Attachment Processes in Adulthood , Vol. 5 eds Bartholomew, Perlman D. (London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers; ), 205–237. [ Google Scholar ]
• Laborde N. D., vanDommelen-Gonzalez E., Minnis A. M. (2014). Trust - that’s a big one: intimate partnership values among urban Latino youth. Cult. Health Sex. 16 1009–1022. 10.1080/13691058.2014.921837 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• LaFollette H., Graham G. (1986). Honesty and intimacy. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 3 3–18. 10.1177/0265407586031001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Larzelere R. E., Huston T. L. (1980). The dyadic trust scale: toward understanding interpersonal trust in close relationships. J. Marriage Fam. 42 595–604. 10.2307/351903 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Laurenceau J.-P., Barrett L. F., Rovine M. J. (2005). The interpersonal process model of intimacy in marriage: a daily-diary and multilevel modeling approach. J. Fam. Psychol. 19 314–323. 10.1037/0893-3200.19.2.314 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Laurenceau J.-P., Feldman Barrett L., Pietromonaco P. R. (1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal process& quot; the importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74 1238–1251. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lauricella A. M. (2009). Why do Mommy and Daddy Love You More? An Investigation of Parental Favoritism from an Evolutionary Perspective. Available online at: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/rws_etd/document/get/bgsu1250869200/inline (accessed February 22, 2020). [ Google Scholar ]
• Lindo J. M., Schaller J., Hansen B. (2013). Economic Downturns and Child Abuse. NBER Working Paper No. 18994 Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lindsey D., Sarah B. (2010). Interpreting honor crimes: the institutional disregard towards female victims of family violence in the Middle East. Int. J. Criminol. Sociol. Theory 3 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Luchies L. B., Rusbult C. E., Kumashiro M., Eastwick P. W., Coolsen M. K., Finkel E. J. (2013). Trust and biased memory of transgressions in romantic relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 104 673–694. 10.1037/a0031054 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Luhmann N. (1979). Trust and Power. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. [ Google Scholar ]
• Luo S., Zhang G. (2009). What leads to romantic attraction: similarity. Reciprocity, security, or beauty? Evidence from a speed-dating study. J. Personal. 77 933–964. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00570.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lutz-Zois C. J., Bradley A. C., Mihalik J. L., Moorman-Eavers E. R. (2006). Perceived similarity and relationship success among dating couples: an idiographic approach. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 23 865–880. 10.1177/0265407506068267 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mann J. (1992). “ Nurturance or negligence: maternal psychology and behavioral preference among preterm twins ,” in The Adapted Mind , eds Barkow J., Cosmides L., Tooby J. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press; ), 367–390. [ Google Scholar ]
• Manne S., Ostroff J., Rini C., Fox K., Goldstein L., Grana G. (2004). The interpersonal process model of intimacy: the role of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and partner responsiveness in interactions between breast cancer patients and their partners. J. Fam. Psychol. 18 589–599. 10.1037/0893-3200.18.4.589 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Masuda M. (2003). Meta-analyses of love scales: Do various love scales measure the same psychological constructs? Jpn. Psychol. Res. 45 25–37. 10.1111/1468-5884.00030 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mathes E. W., Severa N. (1981). Jealousy, romantic love, and liking: theoretical considerations and preliminary scale development. Psychol. Rep. 49 23–31. 10.2466/pr0.1981.49.1.23 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McKelvie S. J., Matthews S. J. (1976). Effects of physical attractiveness and favourableness of character on liking. Psychol. Rep. 38 1223–1230. 10.2466/pr0.1976.38.3c.1223 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meisenzahl J. (2017). Correlation of Brand Experience and Brand Love Using the Example of FlixBus. Master’s thesis, Seinajok University of Applied Sciences, Seinäjoki. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meyers S. A., Berscheid E. (1997). The language of love: the difference a preposition makes. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 23 347–362. 10.1177/0146167297234002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mikulincer M. (2006). “ Attachment, caregiving, and sex within romantic relationships a behavioral systems perspective ,” in Dynamics of Romantic Love: Attachment, Caregiving, and Sex , eds Mikulincer M., Goodman G. S. (New York, NY: Guilford Publications; ), 23–44. [ Google Scholar ]
• Montoya R. M., Horton R. S., Kirchner J. (2008). Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 25 889–922. 10.1177/0265407508096700 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moreland R. L., Zajonc R. B. (1982). Exposure effects in person perception: Familiarity, similarity, and attraction. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 18 395–415. 10.1016/0022-1031(82)90062-2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morris D. (1982). “ Attachment and intimacy ,” in Intimacy , eds Fischer M., Stricter G. (Boston, MA: Springer; ), 305–323. 10.1007/978-1-4684-4160-4_19 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morry M. M. (2005). Relationship satisfaction as a predictor of similarity ratings: a test of the attraction-similarity hypothesis. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 22 561–584. 10.1177/0265407505054524 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Neto F. (2012). Compassionate love for a romantic partner, love styles and subjective well-being. Interpers. Int. J. Pers. Relatsh. 6 23–39. 10.5964/ijpr.v6i1.88 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Noriuchi M., Kikuchi Y. (2013). [Neural basis of maternal behavior]. Seishin Shinkeigaku Zasshi 115 630–634. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Noriuchi M., Kikuchi Y., Senoo A. (2008). The functional neuroanatomy of maternal love: mother’s response to infant’s attachment behaviors. Biol. Psychiatry 63 415–423. 10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.05.018 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Norton M., Frost J., Ariely D., Reis H., Maniaci M., Caprariello P., et al. (2015). When does familiarity promote versus undermine interpersonal attraction? A proposed integrative model from erstwhile adversaries. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 10 3–19. 10.1177/1745691614561682 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oleson M. D. (1996). Adolescents’ Recollection of Early Physical Contact: Implications for Attachment and Intimacy. Master’s thesis, Utah State University, Logan, UT. [ Google Scholar ]
• Orosz G., Szekeres Á., Kiss Z. G., Farkas P., Roland-Lévy C. (2015). Elevated romantic love and jealousy if relationship status is declared on Facebook. Front. Psychol. 6 : 214 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00214 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Papp L. M., Cummings E. M., Goeke-Morey M. C. (2009). For richer, for poorer: money as a topic of marital conflict in the home. Fam. Relat. 58 91–103. 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00537.x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Park C. W., MacInnis D. J., Eisingerich A. B. (2016). Brand Admiration: Building a Business People Love , 1st Edn Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. [ Google Scholar ]
• Park C. W., Macinnis D. J., Priester J., Eisingerich A. B., Iacobucci D. (2010). Brand attachment and brand attitude strength: conceptual and empirical differentiation of two critical brand equity drivers. J. Mark. 74 1–17. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pascual C. O., Académico C. (2015). María del Rosario Zulaica López TRABAJO FIN DE GRADO Brand Awareness and Brand Love. Is the too-of-Mind the Most Loved On? An Application to Fashion Retailers. Available online at: https://biblioteca.unirioja.es/tfe_e/TFE001238.pdf (accessed February 22, 2020). [ Google Scholar ]
• Pedeliento G., Andreini D., Bergamaschi M., Salo J. (2016). Brand and product attachment in an industrial context: the effects on brand loyalty. Ind. Mark. Manage. 53 194–206. 10.1016/J.INDMARMAN.2015.06.007 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Péloquin K., Brassard A., Delisle G., Bédard M.-M. (2013). Integrating the attachment, caregiving, and sexual systems into the understanding of sexual satisfaction. Can. J. Behav. Sci. 45 185–195. 10.1037/a0033514 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rauschnabel P. A., Ahuvia A. C. (2014). You’re so lovable: anthropomorphism and brand love. J. Brand Manage. 21 372–395. 10.1057/bm.2014.14 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Regan P. C., Berscheid E. (1999). Lust: What we Know about Human Sexual Desire. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. 10.4135/9781452233727 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reis H. T., Shaver P. (1988). “ Intimacy as an interpersonal process ,” in Handbook of Personal Relationships: Theory, Research and Interventions , eds Duck S., Hay D. F., Hobfoll S. E., Ickes W., Montgomery B. M. (Oxford: John Wiley & Sons; ), 367–389. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rempel J. K., Holmes J. G. (1985). Trust in close relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 49 95–112. 10.1037/0022-3514.49.1.95 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodriguez L. M., DiBello A. M., Øverup C. S., Neighbors C. (2015). The price of distrust: trust, anxious attachment, jealousy, and partner abuse. Partner Abuse 6 298–319. 10.1891/1946-6560.6.3.298 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rohde P. A., Atzwanger K., Butovskaya M., Lampert A., Mysterud I., Sanchez-Andres A., et al. (2003). Perceived parental favoritism, closeness to kin, and the rebel of the family The effects of birth order and sex. Evol. Hum. Behav. 24 261–276. 10.1016/S1090-5138(03)00033-3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rubin Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 16 265–273. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rusbult C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: a test of the investment model. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 16 172–186. 10.1016/0022-1031(80)90007-4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rusbult C. E., Bissonnette V. L., Arriaga X. B., Cox C. L., Weiss R. L. (1998). “ Accommodation processes during the early years of marriage ,” in The Developmental Course of Marital Dysfunction , ed. Bradbury T. N. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; ), 74–113. 10.1017/CBO9780511527814.005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Russo B., Boess S., Hekkert P. (2011). ‘What’s love got to do with it?’ the experience of love in person-product relationships. Des. J. 14 8–27. 10.2752/175630610X12877385838687 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saegert S., Swap W., Zajonc R. B. (1973). Exposure, context, and interpersonal attraction. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 25 234–242. 10.1037/h0033965 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sailor J. L. (2013). A phenomenological study of falling out of romantic love. Qual. Rep. 18 1–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Salazar L. R. (2015). Exploring the relationship between compassion, closeness, trust, and social support in same-sex friendships. J. Happiness Well Being 3 15–29. [ Google Scholar ]
• Salmon C. A., Shackelford T. K., Michalski R. L. (2012). Birth order, sex of child, and perceptions of parental favoritism. 52 357–362. 10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.033 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seshadri K. G. (2016). The neuroendocrinology of love. Indian J. Endocrinol. Metab. 20 558–563. 10.4103/2230-8210.183479 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Setyawan A. A., Kussudiyarsana I. (2015). Brand trust and brand loyalty, an empirical study in indonesia consumers. Br. J. Mark. Stud. 4 37–47. [ Google Scholar ]
• Siennick S. E. (2013). Still the Favorite? Parents’ differential treatment of siblings entering young adulthood. J. Marriage Fam. 75 981–994. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Simpson J. A. (2007). Foundations of Interpersonal Trust: Handbook of Basic Principles. New York, NY: Guilford. [ Google Scholar ]
• Singh R., Goh A., Sankaran K., Bhullar N. (2016). Similarity and liking effects on interpersonal attraction: test of the two-dimensional trust-respect model. Psychologia 59 1–18. 10.2117/psysoc.2016.1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Singh R., Wegener D. T., Sankaran K., Singh S., Lin P. K. F., Seow M. X., et al. (2015). On the importance of trust in interpersonal attraction from attitude similarity. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 32 829–850. 10.1177/0265407515576993 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sinha A. K. (2017). Impact of product innovation in building brand equity on consumer’s choice with a focus on brand resonance. Int. J. Innov. Manage. Technol. 8 482–487. 10.18178/ijimt.2017.8.6.775 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sprecher S., Christopher F. S., Cate R. (2006). “ Sexuality in close relationships ,” in The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships , eds Vangelisti A. L., Perlman D. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; ), 463–482. 10.1017/CBO9780511606632.026 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sprecher S., Fehr B. (2005). Compassionate love for close others and humanity. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 22 629–651. 10.1177/0265407505056439 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanley S. M., Rhoades G. K., Whitton S. W. (2010). Commitment: functions, formation, and the securing of romantic attachment. J. Fam. Theory Rev. 2 243–257. 10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00060.x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steinberg L. D., Catalano R., Dooley D. (1981). Economic antecedents of child abuse and neglect. Child Dev. 52 975–985. 10.2307/1129102 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sternberg R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychol. Rev. 93 119–135. 10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.119 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sternberg R. J. (1997). Construct validation of a triangular love scale. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 27 313–335. 10.1007/s10936-019-09661-y [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sternberg R. J., Grajek S. (1984). The nature of love. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 47 312–329. 10.1037/0022-3514.47.2.312 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stokburger-Sauer N., Ratneshwar S., Sen S., Howard B. K., Chair W. B. (2008). Drivers of consumer-brand identification. Int. J. Res. Mark. 35 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Suitor J. J., Pillemer K. (2007). Mothers’ favoritism in later life. Res. Aging 29 32–55. 10.1177/0164027506291750 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sullivan R., Perry R., Sloan A., Kleinhaus K., Burtchen N. (2011). Infant bonding and attachment to the caregiver: insights from basic and clinical science. Clin. Perinatol. 38 643–655. 10.1016/j.clp.2011.08.011 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sykes R. E., Larntz K., Fox J. C. (1976). Proximity and similarity effects on frequency of interaction in a class of naval recruits. Sociometry 39 263 10.2307/2786519 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tedam P. (2014). Witchcraft branding and the abuse of African children in the UK: causes, effects and professional intervention. Early Child Dev. Care 184 1403–1414. 10.1080/03004430.2014.901015 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomson M., MacInnis D. J., Whan Park C. (2005). The ties that bind: measuring the strength of consumers’ emotional attachments to brands. J. Consum. Psychol. 15 77–91. 10.1207/S15327663JCP1501_10 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tobore T. (2018). On the Principles of Social Gravity: How Human Systems Work, from the Family to the United Nations. Delaware, DE: Vernon Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Towner S. L., Dolcini M. M., Harper G. W. (2015). Romantic relationship dynamics of urban african american adolescents: patterns of monogamy, commitment, and trust. Youth Soc. 47 343–373. 10.1177/0044118X12462591 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Turgut M. U., Gultekin B. (2015). The critical role of brand love in clothing brands. J. Bus. Econ. Finance 4 : 126 10.17261/Pressacademia.201519963 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wetzel C. G., Insko C. A. (1982). The similarity-attraction relationship: Is there an ideal one? J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 18 253–276. 10.1016/0022-1031(82)90053-1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Whang Y.-O., Allen J., Sahoury N., Zhang H. (2004). “ Falling in love with a product: the structure of a romantic consumer-product relationship ,” in Advances in Consumer Research , eds Kahn B. E., Luce M. F. (Valdosta, GA: Association for Consumer Research; ), 320–327. [ Google Scholar ]
• Whitley B. E. (1993). Reliability and aspects of the construct validity of sternberg’s triangular love scale. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 10 475–480. 10.1177/0265407593103013 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wieselquist J., Rusbult C. E., Foster C. A., Agnew C. R. (1999). Commitment, pro-relationship behavior, and trust in close relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 77 942–966. 10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.942 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson S., Morse J. M., Penrod J. (1998). Developing reciprocal trust in the caregiving relationship. Qual. Health Res. 8 446–465. 10.1177/104973239800800402 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yasin M., Shamim A. (2013). Brand love: mediating role in purchase intentions and word-of-mouth. IOSR J. Bus. Manage. 7 101–109. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zarantonello L., Romani S., Grappi S., Bagozzi R. P. (2016). Brand hate. J. Prod. Brand Manage. 25 11–25. 10.1108/JPBM-01-2015-0799 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhou L. (2017). The Aquila Digital Community How Visual Communication Strategies, Brand Familiarity, And Personal Relevance Influence Instagram Users’ Responses To Brand Content. Graphic Communications Commons. Available online at: https://aquila.usm.edu/dissertationshttps://aquila.usm.edu/dissertations/1435 (accessed February 22, 2020). [ Google Scholar ]
• Zimmerman K. J., Smith J. M., Simonson K., Myers B. W. (2015). Familial relationship outcomes of coming out as an atheist. Secular. Nonrelig. 4 1–13. 10.5334/snr.aw [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Attraction vs. Love: Understanding the Difference

Have you ever wondered why your heart races when you’re drawn to someone, or why the butterflies in your stomach don’t necessarily float away when you’re in love? Attraction and love, often considered two sides of the same coin, significantly influence our relationships. Yet, deciphering between the two can be as perplexing as trying to solve a mystery without all the clues. To truly understand the difference, let’s embark on a journey exploring the nuances of attraction versus love.

What is Attraction?

Before we can grasp the concept of love, we must first understand attraction. Attraction is that initial spark, a magnetic pull towards another person that makes them stand out from the crowd. It’s often the first step towards developing romantic feelings but isn’t equivalent to love.

The Faces of Attraction

Attraction manifests in various forms, and it’s essential to recognize them:

• Physical Attraction: This is when you’re drawn to someone’s appearance or physical attributes. It’s the most immediate and potent form of attraction for many people.
• Emotional Attraction: This type of attraction is a bit deeper, developing as you get to know someone and are drawn to their personality, sense of humor, or emotional intelligence.
• Intellectual Attraction: Some find themselves attracted to another person’s mind. Engaging conversations, similar views on substantial topics, or simply the way a person thinks can be remarkably attractive.
• Social Attraction: Being attracted to someone’s social skills or how they present themselves in social situations is also a form of attraction that can make someone seem more appealing.

Attraction is often sparked by external or superficial factors, and it can be fleeting. Unlike love, it doesn’t necessarily require a deep, emotional connection and can exist even without knowing a person well.

What is Love?

Love, however, is a more profound, complex emotion. It’s a bond that grows over time, enriching as you get to know and understand someone on a deeper level. When you love someone, you accept their imperfections, stand by them through tough times, and feel a sense of partnership and teamwork.

The Layers of Love

Love is multifaceted, with several layers that help to create a strong, lasting connection:

• Compassion and Care: Love involves genuinely caring for another person’s well-being and happiness, often placing their needs at par with, or even above, your own.
• Trust and Security: A loving relationship provides a sense of security and comfort. There’s a mutual trust that forms, allowing vulnerability between partners.
• Commitment: Love involves a desire to maintain a relationship long-term, working through obstacles and growing together.
• Intimacy: Not just physical, but also emotional intimacy is key in love. Feeling connected on a deeper level and sharing your innermost thoughts is a hallmark of love.

Like attraction, love too often begins with a spark. But as love matures, it becomes less about exhilaration and more about stability and shared lives.

The Stages of Relationships and How Attraction and Love Play Their Roles

Relationships typically evolve through various stages, and understanding how attraction and love come into play during these stages can provide deeper insights into your feelings and connections with others.

The Initial Stage: Infatuation and Attraction

The beginning of a relationship is often marked by intense attraction and infatuation. This stage is hallmarked by an obsession with the other person, a desire to be around them constantly, and idealizing them. Attraction runs high, while love has not yet taken root.

The Middle Stage: Deepening Affection and Evolving Love

As the relationship progresses, the initial buzz of attraction transforms into a deeper, more meaningful connection. Partners begin to see each other’s flaws and work through conflicts. At this stage, true love begins to blossom, marked by support, trust, and mutual respect.

The Later Stages: Mature Love

Over time, love matures into a stable and secure companionship. The fiery passion of attraction may lessen, but it’s replaced by a strong bond built on shared experiences, acceptance, and a profound understanding of each other.

Misconceptions About Attraction and Love

Unfortunately, misconceptions abound when it comes to distinguishing between attraction and love. One common mistake is equating intense passion or attraction with deep love, but this can lead to unstable relationships if the connection doesn’t evolve beyond physical or superficial fascination.

Another misconception is that once the initial excitement wears off, love must be gone. However, love is not just about constant excitement; it’s built on a foundation of mutual growth, support, and deep emotional bonding.

Distinguishing Between Attraction and Love

Differentiating between attraction and love is crucial for understanding your own emotions and shaping healthy relationships.

Signs of Attraction

• Immediate, often based on external qualities.
• Focused on the present, with little concern for future plans.
• Can feel intense but lacks depth.

Signs of Love

• Grows over time, with a deepening emotional connection.
• Includes plans for a future together and willingness to work through challenges.
• Transcends physical appearance or superficial traits.

It’s important to listen to your heart but also analyze your feelings rationally. Recognize that attraction can lead to love, but the two are not synonymous.

Finishing Thoughts

Discerning between attraction and love is not always straightforward. While attraction can ignite the spark that may lead to love, it is love that keeps the flame burning steadfastly throughout the seasons of a relationship. As we’ve explored, attraction captivates the eyes, but love captivates the soul.

Understanding the difference allows us to make informed decisions about our relationships, appreciate the initial sparks of attraction without being blinded by them, and nurture true love that is rooted in deep connection and commitment. While attraction is the poem that stirs the senses, love is the story that stands the test of time. So, cherish attraction for its thrilling rush but strive for love that endures and enriches your life immensely.

Subscribe to our mailing list to get the newest self-help content!

Sign up for the daily newsletter.

Creating a Retirement Income Stream: Tips and Tricks

How lifestyle choices affect attractiveness, related articles.

The Effect of Red Color on Attraction

Understanding Aesthetic Attraction

The Attraction of Opposites: Myth or Reality?

The Role of Art and Creativity in Attraction

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Module 8: Early Adulthood

Attraction and love, learning outcomes.

• Describe some of the factors related to attraction in relationships
• Apply Sternberg’s theory of love to relationships
• Summarize attachment theory in adulthood

Why do some people hit it off immediately? Or decide that the friend of a friend was not likable? Using scientific methods, psychologists have investigated factors influencing attraction and have identified a number of variables, such as similarity, proximity (physical or functional), familiarity, and reciprocity, that influence with whom we develop relationships.

Figure 1 . Great and important relationships can develop by chance and physical proximity helps. For example, seeing someone regularly on your daily bus commute to work or school may be all that’s necessary to spark a genuine friendship. [Image: Cheri Lucas Rowlands, https://goo.gl/crCc0Q, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://goo.gl/rxiUsF]

Often we “stumble upon” friends or romantic partners; this happens partly due to how close in proximity we are to those people. Specifically, proximity or physical nearness has been found to be a significant factor in the development of relationships. For example, when college students go away to a new school, they will make friends consisting of classmates, roommates, and teammates (i.e., people close in proximity). Proximity allows people the opportunity to get to know one other and discover their similarities—all of which can result in a friendship or intimate relationship. Proximity is not just about geographic distance, but rather functional distance, or the frequency with which we cross paths with others. For example, college students are more likely to become closer and develop relationships with people on their dorm-room floors because they see them (i.e., cross paths) more often than they see people on a different floor. How does the notion of proximity apply in terms of online relationships? Deb Levine (2000) argues that in terms of developing online relationships and attraction, functional distance refers to being at the same place at the same time in a virtual world (i.e., a chat room or Internet forum)—crossing virtual paths.

Familiarity

One of the reasons why proximity matters to attraction is that it breeds familiarity ; people are more attracted to that which is familiar. Just being around someone or being repeatedly exposed to them increases the likelihood that we will be attracted to them. We also tend to feel safe with familiar people, as it is likely we know what to expect from them. Dr. Robert Zajonc (1968) labeled this phenomenon the mere-exposure effect. More specifically, he argued that the more often we are exposed to a stimulus (e.g., sound, person) the more likely we are to view that stimulus positively. Moreland and Beach (1992) demonstrated this by exposing a college class to four women (similar in appearance and age) who attended different numbers of classes, revealing that the more classes a woman attended, the more familiar, similar, and attractive she was considered by the other students.

There is a certain comfort in knowing what to expect from others; consequently, research suggests that we like what is familiar. While this is often on a subconscious level, research has found this to be one of the most basic principles of attraction (Zajonc, 1980). For example, a young man growing up with an overbearing mother may be attracted to other overbearing women not because he likes being dominated but rather because it is what he considers normal (i.e., familiar).

When you hear about celebrity couples such as Kim Kardashian and Kanye West, do you shake your head thinking “this won’t last”? It is probably because they seem so different. While many make the argument that opposites attract, research has found that is generally not true; s imilarity is key. Sure, there are times when couples can appear fairly different, but overall we like others who are like us. Ingram and Morris (2007) examined this phenomenon by inviting business executives to a cocktail mixer, 95% of whom reported that they wanted to meet new people. Using electronic name tag tracking, researchers revealed that the executives did not mingle or meet new people; instead, they only spoke with those they already knew well (i.e., people who were similar).

When it comes to marriage, research has found that couples tend to be very similar, particularly when it comes to age, social class, race, education, physical attractiveness, values, and attitudes (McCann Hamilton, 2007; Taylor, Fiore, Mendelsohn, & Cheshire, 2011). This phenomenon is known as the matching hypothesis (Feingold, 1988; Mckillip & Redel, 1983). We like others who validate our points of view and who are similar in thoughts, desires, and attitudes.

Reciprocity

Another key component in attraction is reciprocity ; this principle is based on the notion that we are more likely to like someone if they feel the same way toward us. In other words, it is hard to be friends with someone who is not friendly in return. Another way to think of it is that relationships are built on give and take; if one side is not reciprocating, then the relationship is doomed. Basically, we feel obliged to give what we get and to maintain equity in relationships. Researchers have found that this is true across cultures (Gouldner, 1960).

Figure 2. Romantic relationships are so central to psychological health that most people in the world are or will be in a romantic relationship in their lifetime. [Image: CC0 Public Domain, https://goo.gl/m25gce]

Is all love the same? Are there different types of love? Examining these questions more closely, Robert Sternberg’s (2004; 2007) work has focused on the notion that all types of love are comprised of three distinct areas: intimacy, passion, and commitment. Intimacy includes caring, closeness, and emotional support. The passion component of love is comprised of physiological and emotional arousal; these can include physical attraction, emotional responses that promote physiological changes, and sexual arousal. Lastly, commitment refers to the cognitive process and decision to commit to love another person and the willingness to work to keep that love over the course of your life. The elements involved in intimacy (caring, closeness, and emotional support) are generally found in all types of close relationships—for example, a mother’s love for a child or the love that friends share. Interestingly, this is not true for passion. Passion is unique to romantic love, differentiating friends from lovers. In sum, depending on the type of love and the stage of the relationship (i.e., newly in love), different combinations of these elements are present.

Taking this theory a step further, anthropologist Helen Fisher explained that she scanned the brains (using fMRI) of people who had just fallen in love and observed that their brain chemistry was “going crazy,” similar to the brain of an addict on a drug high (Cohen, 2007). Specifically, serotonin production increased by as much as 40% in newly-in-love individuals. Further, those newly in love tended to show obsessive-compulsive tendencies. Conversely, when a person experiences a breakup, the brain processes it in a similar way to quitting a heroin habit (Fisher, Brown, Aron, Strong, & Mashek, 2009). Thus, those who believe that breakups are physically painful are correct! Another interesting point is that long-term love and sexual desire activate different areas of the brain. More specifically, sexual needs activate the part of the brain that is particularly sensitive to innately pleasurable things such as food, sex, and drugs (i.e., the striatum—a rather simplistic reward system), whereas love requires conditioning—it is more like a habit. When sexual needs are rewarded consistently, then love can develop. In other words, love grows out of positive rewards, expectancies, and habit (Cacioppo, Bianchi-Demicheli, Hatfield & Rapson, 2012).

Link to Learning

Dive deeper into Helen Fisher’s research by watching her TED talk “The Brain in Love.”

Figure 2. The Triangular Theory of Love. Adapted from Wikipedia Creative Commons, 2013.

Attachment Theory in Adulthood

The need for intimacy, or close relationships with others, is universal and persistent across the lifespan. What our adult intimate relationships look like actually stems from infancy and our relationship with our primary caregiver (historically our mother)—a process of development described by attachment theory, which you learned about in the module on infancy. Recall that according to attachment theory, different styles of caregiving result in different relationship “attachments.”

For example, responsive mothers—mothers who soothe their crying infants—produce infants who have secure attachments (Ainsworth, 1973; Bowlby, 1969). About 60% of all children are securely attached. As adults, secure individuals rely on their working models—concepts of how relationships operate—that were created in infancy, as a result of their interactions with their primary caregiver (mother), to foster happy and healthy adult intimate relationships. Securely attached adults feel comfortable being depended on and depending on others.

As you might imagine, inconsistent or dismissive parents also impact the attachment style of their infants (Ainsworth, 1973), but in a different direction. In early studies on attachment style, infants were observed interacting with their caregivers, followed by being separated from them, then finally reunited. About 20% of the observed children were “resistant,” meaning they were anxious even before, and especially during, the separation; and 20% were “avoidant,” meaning they actively avoided their caregiver after separation (i.e., ignoring the mother when they were reunited). These early attachment patterns can affect the way people relate to one another in adulthood. Anxious-resistant adults worry that others don’t love them, and they often become frustrated or angry when their needs go unmet. Anxious-avoidant adults will appear not to care much about their intimate relationships and are uncomfortable being depended on or depending on others themselves.

The good news is that our attachment can be changed. It isn’t easy, but it is possible for anyone to “recover” a secure attachment. The process often requires the help of a supportive and dependable other, and for the insecure person to achieve coherence—the realization that their upbringing is not a permanent reflection of character or a reflection of the world at large, nor does it bar them from being worthy of love or others of being trustworthy (Treboux, Crowell, & Waters, 2004).

You can watch this video “What is Your Attachment Style?” from The School of Life  to learn more.

Applications of Sternberg’s Theory

• Modification, adaptation, and original content. Authored by : Margaret Clark-Plaskie for Lumen Learning. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
• Section on Love . Authored by : Debi Brannan and Cynthia D. Mohr . Provided by : Western Oregon University, Portland State University. Located at : https://nobaproject.com/modules/love-friendship-and-social-support . Project : The Noba Project. License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
• The Family; section on attachment. Authored by : Joel A. Muraco . Provided by : University of Wisconsin, Green Bay. Located at : https://nobaproject.com/modules/the-family . Project : The Noba Project. License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
• Psyc 200 Lifespan Psychology. Authored by : Laura Overstreet . Located at : http://opencourselibrary.org/econ-201/ . License : CC BY: Attribution

Love as Commitment

• First Online: 06 June 2019

Cite this chapter

• Victor Karandashev 2  

This chapter discusses the feeling of commitment—in short terms as well as in long terms. In many cultures, it is considered as a key experience of love. The chapter also discusses pros and cons of the beliefs and practice of exclusivity in love. The norms of exclusivity depend on cultural parameters, such as gender equality and others. The chapter also describes the values and experience of long-term commitment in American, Chinese, Japanese, and Indians cultures.

The chapter reviews the variety of experience and expression of commitment in love, the methods and measures, which researchers employed to study those, and the results that they obtained in their studies. The chapter describes in details (1) the research designs, (2) methods, (3) instruments and measures, (4) samples (including their location, sample size, and other details), and (5) the data and results of studies (including descriptive statistics, such as means and size of correlations).

The details of descriptive statistics help readers understand what the differences in the means for cultural samples are, what is the size of correlations, and other statistics. These details allow readers to make independent judgments about reliability and validity of results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Bergstrand, C. R., & Sinski, J. B. (2010). Swinging in America: Love, sex, and marriage in the 21st century . Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

Google Scholar  

Bhugra, D. (1993). Cross-cultural aspects of jealousy. International Review of Psychiatry, 5 (2-3), 271–280.

Article   Google Scholar  

Branden, N. (1980/2008). The psychology of romantic love: Romantic love in an anti-romantic age . New York, NY: Penguin. (Original work published 1980).

Buss, D. M. (2000). The dangerous passion: Why jealousy is as necessary as love and sex . New York, NY: Free Press.

Cohen, M. T. (2015). An exploratory study of individuals in non-traditional, alternative relationships: How “open” are we? Sexuality & Culture, 20 (2), 295–315.

De Silva, D., & De Silva, P. (1999). Morbid jealousy in an Asian country: A clinical exploration from Sri Lanka. International Review of Psychiatry, 11 (2-3), 116–121.

Delaney, N. (1996). Romantic love and loving commitment: articulating a modern ideal. American Philosophical Quarterly, 33 (4), 339–356.

D’Hondt, W., & Vandewiele, M. (1983). Attitudes of West African students toward love and marriage. Psychological Reports, 53 (2), 615–621.

Díaz-Vera, J. E., & Caballero, R. (2013). Exploring the feeling-emotions continuum across cultures: Jealousy in English and Spanish. Intercultural Pragmatics, 10 (2), 265–294.

Ellis, A. (1949). A study of human love relationships. The Pedagogical Seminary and Journal of Genetic Psychology, 75 (1), 61–71.

Farrer, J., Tsuchiya, H., & Bagrowicz, B. (2008). Emotional expression in tsukiau dating relationships in Japan. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25 (1), 169–188.

Fisher, H. (2004). Why we love: The nature and chemistry of romantic love . New York, NY: Henry Holt.

Fitzpatrick, J., Liang, S., Feng, D., Crawford, D., Tsorell, G., & Morgan-Fleming, B. (2001). Social values and self-disclosure: A comparison of Chinese native, Chinese resident (in U.S.) and North American spouses. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 37 , 113–127.

Gala, J., & Kapadia, S. (2014). Romantic love, commitment and marriage in emerging adulthood in an Indian context: views of emerging adults and middle adults. Psychology and Developing Societies, 26 (1), 115–141.

Gao, G. (2001). Intimacy, passion, and commitment in Chinese and US American romantic relationships. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25 (3), 329–342.

Gould, T. (2000). The lifestyle: A look at the erotic rites of swingers . Buffalo, NY: Firefly Books.

Hagene, T. (2008). Negotiating love in post-revolutionary Nicaragua: The role of love in the reproduction of gender asymmetry . Oxford, UK: Peter Lang.

Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R. L. (2005). Love and sex: Cross-cultural perspectives (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Hendrick, C., Hendrick, S. S., & Dicke, A. (1998). The love attitudes scale: Short form. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15 (2), 147–159.

Jankowiak, W., Bell, M. D., & Buckmaster, A. (2002). Managing infidelity: A cross-cultural perspective. Ethnology, 41 (1), 85.

Jankowiak, W., Shen, Y., Yao, S., Wang, C., & Volsche, S. (2015). Investigating love’s universal attributes: A research report from China. Cross-Cultural Research, 49 (4), 422–436.

Jenks, R. J. (1998). Swinging: A review of the literature. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 27 (5), 507–521.

Kim, H. J., & Hupka, R. B. (2002). Comparison of associative meaning of the concepts of anger, envy, fear, romantic jealousy, and sadness between English and Korean. Cross-Cultural Research, 36 (3), 229–255.

Klesse, C. (2006). Polyamory and its ‘others’: Contesting the terms of non-monogamy. Sexualities, 9 (5), 565–583.

Klesse, C. (2014). Polyamory: Intimate practice, identity or sexual orientation? Sexualities, 17 (1-2), 81–99.

Lancaster, R. N. (1992). Life is hard: Machismo, danger, and the intimacy of power in Nicaragua . Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Larson, R., Wilson, S., Brown, B. B., Furstenberg, F. F., & Verma, S. (2002). Changes in adolescents’ interpersonal experiences: Are they being prepared for adult relationships in the twenty-first century? Journal of Research on Adolescence, 12 (1), 31–68.

Lindholm, C. (1998). The future of love. In V. C. De Munck (Ed.), Romantic love and sexual desire behavior: Perspectives from social sciences (pp. 17–32). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Lomas, T. (2018). The flavours of love: A cross‐cultural lexical analysis. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 48 , 134–152.

Marston, P. J., Hecht, M. L., Manke, M. L., McDaniel, S., & Reeder, H. (1998). The subjective experience of intimacy. Passion, and Commitment in Heterosexual Loving Relationships. Personal Relationships, 5 , 15–30.

McKeever, N. (2017). Is the requirement of sexual exclusivity consistent with romantic love? Journal of Applied Philosophy, 34 (3), 353–369.

Netting, N. (2010). Marital ideoscapes in 21st-century India: Creative combinations of love and responsibility. Journal of Family Issues, 31 (6), 707–726.

O’Neill, N., & O’Neill, G. (1984). Open marriage: A new life style for couples . Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Ostovich, J. M., & Sabini, J. (2004). How are sociosexuality, sex drive, and lifetime number of sexual partners related? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30 (10), 1255–1266.

Parameswaran, G. (2014). Are evolutionary psychology assumptions about sex and mating behaviors valid? A historical and cross-cultural exploration. Dialectical Anthropology, 38 (3), 353–373.

Punja, S. (1992). Divine ecstasy: The story of Khajuraho . New Delhi, India: Viking.

Rosenblatt, P. (1967). Marital residence and the functions of romantic love. Ethnology, 6 , 471–480.

Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16 , 265–273.

Schippers, M. (2016). Beyond monogamy: Polyamory and the future of polyqueer sexualities . New York: NYU Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Sprecher, S., & Metts, S. (1989). Development of the Romantic Beliefs Scale and examination of the effects of gender and gender-role orientation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6 , 387–411.

Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Construct validation of a triangular love scale. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27 , 313–335.

Tzeng, O. C. S. (1993). Measurement of love and intimate relations: Theories, scales, and applications for love development, maintenance, and dissolution . Westport, CT: Praeger.

Yela, C. (2006). The Evaluation of Love. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 22 (1), 21–27.

Zhang, R., Ting-Toomey, S., Dorjee, T., & Lee, P. S. (2012). Culture and self-construal as predictors of relational responses to emotional infidelity: China and the United States. Chinese Journal of Communication, 5 (2), 137–159.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, Aquinas College, Grand Rapids, MI, USA

Victor Karandashev

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Karandashev, V. (2019). Love as Commitment. In: Cross-Cultural Perspectives on the Experience and Expression of Love . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15020-4_7

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15020-4_7

Published : 06 June 2019

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-15019-8

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-15020-4

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science and Psychology Behavioral Science and Psychology (R0)

Share this chapter

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

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Relationships

Varieties of Love Relationships Through the Adolescent Age

Parents need to take adolescent love seriously in a variety of common forms..

Posted January 7, 2019

• Why Relationships Matter
• Find a therapist to strengthen relationships

It was a hard question to answer: “How does love between adolescents change over the growing-up years, and what lessons might a young person learn from each kind of experience?” What follows are a few thoughts in response.

I think for most adolescents, to experience love is to give your heartfelt caring to someone you ultimately value and by whom you dearly want to be so valued in return.

The foundational love experience for most young people is usually with parents and the constancy of their love. For the child, this is sufficient love, but as the adolescent grows older there is the desire to socialize significant caring outside of the family. Now progressive stages of possible love can begin to unfold.

I say “possible” because some adolescents experience none of the four kinds of love to be discussed, more experience one or two, and a very few experience them all. Observations about these four kinds adolescent love relationships follow, suggesting formative lessons that each relationship might have to teach.

Best Friendship Love, BFF (“Best Friends Forever”), can feel like a merged relationship because of how similarity rules. “We are totally alike. We know each other’s emotions without being told.” This creates an immature intimacy of great power. The intimacy is immature because it is based on shared commonality, with not much room for individual differences and variation. So there can be little attention paid to, and room created for diversity. What usually ends these relationships is when one party feels the need for more adolescent differentiation, and now this need starts growing them apart. “I need more freedom to be myself and to make other friends.”

Love lessons learned from a BFF relationship can be intimacy based on shared similarity, compatibility, emotional sensitivity to another, and loyalty to a primary social relationship.

Crush Love , can feel very emotionally compelling because the projection of personal ideals on a peer creates the desire to be like the person so admired. “She’s everything I want to be, and I want to be with her all the time!” One person attributes their ideals to another and then is enamored with what they have imagined. There is some risk of having one’s smitten feelings exploited, following another’s example or giving in despite the cost. Crushes don’t last long because they are more about the lover than the loved. This is a brief intimacy since it is based more on fantasy than attachment , and as ideals change or as reality proves the worshipped other less than one imagined, the crush wears off. “He’s not as great as I wanted to believe.” “She’s not the perfect person I thought she was!"

Love lessons learned from a crush relationship can be the admiration of a loved one, valuing in another person what one wants for oneself, learning from another person a different way to be.

In-Love is the awakening of a romantic attraction , which can be exciting, idealized, euphoric, obsessive, and urgent, very emotionally intense on all counts. “Being together is all I can think of!” The desire for physical intimacy to affirm the attachment becomes more compelling. And now the desire for a perfectly happy union can make separations, misunderstandings, disagreements, and jealousies hard to bear. “I hate it when we don’t get along!” The wearing off of infatuation is what brings most of these relationships to a close.

Love lessons learned from an in-love relationship can be experiencing romantic attraction, daring to risk more emotional vulnerability, being willing to do more intimate sharing, and facing how the person one loves the most can often hurt one the worst.

True Love is the commitment to grow a loving intimacy into the foreseeable future. Beyond loving each other is their liking of each other, valuing that company better than with anyone else. Exclusively, they enjoy being a social couple. “We belong together!” Now lastingness of the relationship depends on a willingness to work at keeping the sense of commitment made. Although a few young people marry their high school sweethearts, most do not because life changes of one kind or another (like going a different direction after graduation) tend to grow the couple apart. “We still care for each other but just decided to go our separate ways.”

Love lessons learned from a true love relationship can be managing a mature intimacy that encompasses and values both human similarities and differences, learning how to create a mutuality in which each treats the other well, and coming to weather normal ups and downs in a relationship without impulsively seeking to end it.

Important for parents to remember is that just because most of these love relationships don’t last doesn’t mean they are not of lasting value. They are.

• Best friendship can teach the power of compatibility
• Crush relationships can teach the power of admiration
• In-love can teach the power of romantic attraction
• True love can teach the power of mutuality

These lessons are educational and can be formative. Classroom education can only teach so much about life. When it comes to learning about love, relationships are the best instructors. One aspect of these transitory relationships is the reality of loss that commonly occurs. I believe parents must keep a caring watch when:

• Best friendship ends
• A crush wears off
• In-love breaks up
• True love is let go

Parents need to provide empathy and support to help the bereft adolescent appreciate the value of what was given, mourn the loss of what has been taken away, and assess important lessons about love that can be beneficially carried forward.

And of course, if their adolescent is in the rejected role, parents must attend particularly closely to see that hurt feelings do not lead to unhappy outcomes—acting depressively and becoming despondent, acting aggressively and deciding to retaliate, or acting depressively/aggressively and harming them self.

It’s important that parents not to dismiss this unhappiness as only a loss of youthful or “puppy” love. Take it seriously. At whatever age, love is love.

Next week's entry: Parenting Adolescents in Today's Computer World

Carl Pickhardt Ph.D. is a psychologist in private counseling and public lecturing practice in Austin, Texas. His latest book is Holding On While Letting Go: Parenting Your Child Through the Four Freedoms of Adolescence.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

• Request appointment

Five Ways to Express Love

There are many ways of expressing love, and most people have one or two ways that they most commonly demonstrate affection. These are also usually the same ways that they best identify and understand love when it’s offered to them. It’s important to understand how you and your partner feel and show appreciation, so that you can recognize when they are showing love, and adjust your own way of offering love to them so that they can truly feel it. Below are the most common five ways to express love.

Some people express and feel love through gift-giving. Giving flowers, clothes, a favorite treat, or a handmade item is one way people demonstrate that they are thinking about you.

Another way to express love is to do something kind or helpful for another person. By doing a chore or making a meal for your loved one, you can show them that they are important to you.

Spending quality time together is also an expression of love. When a person gives you their undivided attention, or makes time to take a walk or do another activity together, they are expressing that you are a priority in their life.

Love can be expressed through physical affection. Holding hands, giving a back rub, embracing, or kissing are often used to express love and attachment.

Some people feel and demonstrate love through words. Giving compliments and encouragement, saying “I love you,” and leaving notes of affection and appreciation are all ways of letting people know how much they mean to you.

If you and your partner have different ways of expressing and feeling love, it can lead to misunderstanding and frustration in your relationship—but it doesn’t have to. Most couples do love each other and want their partner to feel that love. Understanding how the other person shows and feels affection, and being willing to express your feelings in the way they best receive them, can help both of you to feel loved and fulfilled in your relationship.

Share this post

See more posts in this category

Check out our past newsletters

Related posts

Ways to Avoid COVID Anger Displacement

3 Easy Ways to Develop an Appreciation for Differences

Ways to Cope with Bereavement during COVID-19