The Triangular Theory of Love

Using examples from your personal relationships, explain the Triangular Theory of Love. Your response can be written in the first person.

Relationships

In 1986 Robert Sternberg proposed the “Triangular Theory of Love” which comprised of three key elements: intimacy, passion and commitment. However, he does note that these three elements are not the only way that love can be defined, nor do these three elements describe all relationships. First I will discuss intimacy, passion and commitment, and their impact on the satisfaction of close relationships as discussed by Sternberg. Then comparisons will be drawn to five major relationships in my life, and the accuracy and relevance of Sternberg’s theory will be examined. It was found that his theories moderately correlated to my experience, although he fails to mention the social allergy effect that has played an important role.

Intimacy

Intimacy in this context has been defined as “closeness, connectedness, and bondedness” (Sternberg, 1986, p.119) and is related to feelings of warmth and comfort found in close relationships. It is associated with emotional investment, and is not exclusive to romantic partners. For example, in an earlier study (Sternberg, & Grajek, 1984) it was found that men usually experience more intimacy with their romantic partners than any other relationship, but women most often experienced higher levels of intimacy with their same sex best friend than their romantic partner. Intimacy is considered to be able to be cognitively controlled to a moderate degree, has been found to be relatively stable, and in good relationships can increase for a long time. Sternberg (1986) proposed 10 characteristics of someone in an intimate relationship:
(a) desire to promote the welfare of the loved one,
(b) experienced happiness with the loved one,
(c) high regard for the loved one,
(d) being able to count on the loved one in times of need,
(e) mutual understanding with the loved one,
(f) sharing of one's self and one's possessions with the loved one,
(g) receipt of emotional support from the loved one,
(h) giving of emotional support to the loved one,
(i) intimate communication with the loved one,
(j) and valuing the loved one in one's life (p.120-1)
Intimacy is considered to be one of the factors present in liking, compassionate love, romantic love, and consummate love.

Passion

Passion is considered the most psychophysiological of the three categories, and is the component most often sung about in popular songs. Sternberg (1986) has defined it as leading to “romance, physical attraction, sexual consummation, and related phenomena…” (p.119). It derives from motivational sources, is fairly unstable, and is difficult to control cognitively. Unlike intimacy and commitment, passion is thought to be almost solely the domain of romantic relationships. It is both unusual and socially unacceptable in most Western societies to passionately love a parent or sibling even if you are both committed to, and enjoy an intimate relationship with them. Passion is a realm where the sexual may dominate the relationship, although other factors are also considered in this domain. For example self-esteem, nurturance, dominance and submission might be a part of the passionate side of the relationship. It should be noted here that sex, passion and the aforementioned categories are not mutually exclusive. Passion can operate on the other two factors in multiple ways depending on the nature of the relationship. For example in most romantic relationships people fall passionately in love, then develop intimacy and commitment. However, some relationships, like a man purchasing the services of a prostitute might be deliberately low in intimacy and commitment, despite a passionate need for submission being completely fulfilled by, for example, autoerotic asphyxiation. Passion is considered a part of infatuated love, romantic love, fatuous love and consummate love.

Commitment

Commitment is the third element of Sternberg’s love triangle. It is further divided into two categories of short and long term commitment. Short term commitment in this instance means the decision to love someone, and long term commitment means the decision to maintain the loving relationship. As the description implies this element is both the most cognitively controlled and is considered the most important in sustaining long term relationships. High levels of commitment can be the cause of passion and intimacy, for example in an arranged marriage, however in western societies it most commonly develops because of the continued prevalence of the other two factors. Sternberg proposes that most often “the decision will precede commitment both temporally and logically” (Sternberg, 1986, p.123) In romantic partners commitment is not considered necessary, depending on the type of relationship. Commitment is considered a part of empty love, compassionate love, fatuous love and consummate love.

Types of Love

Sternberg details seven types of loving relationships, as well as one category of “nonlove”, described as all relationships that do not have love as a factor, such as casual acquaintances. A summary of the interrelations between these three factors, and what type of love they produce is in appendix A.

Throughout my life I have personally been in four of these categories with various romantic partners, including infatuated love, romantic love, compassionate love and consummate love. This is not counting nonlove or liking as categories of a romantic relationship. I will discuss Sternberg’s theories about each of three of these, then contrast his theories to my experience. Firstly to categorize the five relationships, I have given subjective ratings out of 10; the results are listed below.



Romantic Love

This is where a couple have both high levels of intimacy and passion, but lack a commitment to each other. Sternberg compares this to the love of Romeo and Juliet, and writes that some researches have argued that this does not differ from infatuated love. One finding about romantic love is that it tends to be difficult to sustain for a long period of time, because of Sternberg’s proposed resistance theory. This theory is analogous to that of drug addiction, in that there is a natural habituation that causes passion to become less felt over a period of time, which can develop quite rapidly. Sternberg (1986) also writes that “many romantic loves are short term and are never intended to be anything else.” (p.122) This correlates quite highly to my own personal experience. The two relationships I would class in this category would be with Alex, who was my first girlfriend, and Julianne, a traveler I dated for a period of two months. In both relationships the emotion was felt quite strongly and came on quite quickly. However, in the relationship with Jules the passion did not fade as predicted, but increased as her departure date came closer. My relationship with Alex did follow Sternberg’s principals, and the lack of commitment on my part was the undoing of the relationship.

Compassionate Love

Compassionate love is defined by high levels of commitment and intimacy, and is proposed to be most common in long term friendships and marriages that continue after the physical attraction has ceased. It is also considered one of the most stable types of relationship. Although the only relationship I would put into this category was fairly atypical, my experience was quite different. In a relationship with Bronny, which lasted approximately 12 months, there was a deficit of passion felt due to the fact that she was quite strongly religious. This caused considerable problems in the relationship, and resulted in its termination. This would be one example of Sternberg’s theory not applying to a relationship.

Consummate Love

Consummate love is also referred to as complete love and is the result of all three elements being in balance, hopefully at high levels. A part of Sternberg’s (1986) theory that becomes relevant here is his principal of “Amount of love: Area of the triangle.” (p.128) He proposes that a relationship can be balanced or irregular, representing the relation between different elements of the love, and bigger or smaller depending on the size of the love. From this he is able to represent a much greater variety of types of love than if all triangles were of equal size. Consummate love is considered to be most enduring form of love although Sternberg warns; “Reaching the goal is often easier than maintaining it.” (p.124) The two relationships that I would class in this category are with Liz and Verney, although at different levels. His prediction that these will be the most enduring was incorrect with Liz and is correct for my relationship with Verney. However, I believe that the reason that my relationship with Liz ended because of a factor not considered by Sternberg, which is the social allergy effect. This effect is described as “hypersensitive annoyance or disgust to a repeated behavior.” (Cunningham, Shamblen, Barbee, & Ault, 2005, p.273) This theory proposes that what begins as small annoyances, like the breaking of particular social norms or intrusive behavior (e.g. continuous phone calls), gradually become more significant over time. In reviewing these five relationships I can say that this effect played a role in three of them, and had a major effect in two. In support of Sternberg’s prediction that high level consummate love should last the longest, my relationship with Verney has been the most enduring relationship in my life, lasting over 18 months so far.

Conclusion

Sternberg’s triangular theory of love is quite accurate as a general theory and forms an important theoretical framework in understanding loving relationships. A minor flaw in his theory is that it fails to go into details about the courses particular relationships follow. However a much larger deficit in his theory, is that it does not incorporate the social allergy effect. This was particularly evident when using the triangular theory of love to analyze the relationships in my life. A possible way to incorporate the social allergy effect would be integrating it with the size of love factor, in that the larger the love the more likely small transgressions will be forgiven and the less likely they are to become social allergies.

References

Cunningham, M. R., Shamblen, S. R., Barbee, A. P. & Ault, L. K. (2005). Social allergies in romantic relationships: Behavioral repetition, emotional sensitization, and dissatisfaction in dating couples. Personal Relationships, 12, 273–295.

Sternberg, R. J., & Grajek, S. (1984). The nature of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 312-329.

Sternberg, R. J. (1986) A Triangular Theory of Love. Psychological Review, 93(2), 119-135.

Appendix A

Heroin Addicts

We are addicts and we behave recklessly without regard for the consequences of our actions. Sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly, we destroy the ones we love as surely as we destroy ourselves. (Brown, 2004, p.174)

Stereotypes have been defined in different ways by various researchers, and can have many different connotations between individuals. For the purposes of this essay it will be defined as “a belief about a group of individuals” (Kanahara, 2006). This essay will discuss stereotypes surrounding heroin addicts in particular, and hypothesize about possible reasons for their origin and why they are maintained. It will also propose methods for changing these stereotypes and provide a concept map of the variables involved.

Many people in Australia hold prejudices against heroin addicts. Some of these have existed since at least the 1950’s, and are solidly engrained in the Australian psyche. Some view heroin addicts as “untrustworthy, mistrustful, dangerous, and a menace to the community” (Coomber, & Maher, 2006) while others associate them with habitual criminality. There has been a debate surrounding whether heroin addicts “are indiscriminate, random and even impulsive in carrying out their criminal activities, or by contrast, if they are skilled criminal entrepreneurs.” (Faupel, 1987, p.115) In addition to this association with crime, heroin addicted females are often seen as more likely to be prostitutes, and members of both genders may be seen as more likely to be HIV positive. Even when heroin addicts are not being associated with criminal behaviour, they are seen as detriments to society. It is also not uncommon to hear heroin addicts stereotyped as ‘junkies,’ ‘smackies’ and unable to control their addiction. Changing stigmatisms such as the one held by many Australians about heroin addicts would be a difficult task.

Interestingly, Australia was not originally opposed to heroin use, and during the 1930’s it is estimated that Australia was using 7.5% of the worlds legal heroin supply, approximately 50 times more per capita than the United States (Rowe, 2005). However, by the 1950’s, in part due to pressure from the United Nations, and in particular the United States, Australia altered its policy on narcotics. Political commentators advocated a conforming policy of prohibition, using arguments such as;
This sinful, wicked chemical can contribute to wholesale national rot and demoralisation ... Heroin addicts exhibit pronounced psychopathic tendencies ... most of them are weak, unhappy persons; and many are homosexual (Victorian Parliamentary Debates 1953, 1986, as cited in Rowe, 2005).
Over time, at least in the intellectual community, heroin addicts have been seen less as psychopaths and more as victims. However, amongst the general population the view that drug addicts are criminally minded seems to have been maintained.

The reasons that prejudice surrounding heroin addicts presently exist and are maintained are complex and varied. From an evolutionary perspective there are many reasons that humans place people into groups, leading some researchers to conclude that “prejudice is natural” (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008, p.411). There are two parts to this statement. Firstly perceiving people in other groups as inferior serves to benefit the members of select groups by increasing the likeliness of reciprocal altruism, and by boosting self esteem (Deckers, 2005). Secondly most humans operate on systems of heuristics, because algorithms take up time and energy, and are inefficient. However, perhaps the most influential factor in maintaining prejudice and consequent discrimination against heroin addicts is personal experience. In one longitudinal study Deschenes, Anglin, and Speckart (1991) followed 279 male heroin addicts for a period of two years. During that time they reported over 250,000 property crimes, 4251 arrests, and cost the state of California an estimated $85 million. It would be pointless to estimate how many people were affected both directly and indirectly from this sample group. However, it would appear safe to assume that some of those that were robbed formed a stigma against heroin addicts. Parallel with these findings is research suggesting that when interviewed, heroin addicts frequently admit that they steal to obtain money for heroin, and rarely self report that they lead a life free of crime (Hammersley, & Morrison, 1987) Empirical research has also supported the stereotype that heroin addicts are more likely to be HIV positive. For example a 10 year longitudinal study on heroin addicts in Spain found that 30% of the participants had died during the duration of the study, 51% of which were AIDS related. (Sanchez-Carbonell, & Seus, 2000)

The stereotypes surrounding heroin addicts would be difficult to change, particularly as many stem from personal negative experience. For example if a person saw a heroin addict overdosing, then they might develop a classically conditioned response between heroin addicts (unconditioned stimulus) and feeling bad because they observed someone dying (unconditioned response). Also media portrayals in recent years have tended to be negative, associating the deaths of well respected artists, particularly in the music industry, to their heroin addiction. A few recent examples could include the lead singer from Sublime, Bradley Nowell being found dead in his hotel from a heroin overdose, and Kurt Cobain’s apparently heroin related suicide[1]. However, if more artists’ heroin use was made public then people could form positive associations. Also, informing people about the principal of “conscious override” (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008, p.425), might allow them to see a heroin addict while walking down a dark alley at night and realize that their automatic response to run displays a prejudice, which is contrary to the idea of equality. Journal articles such as the ones discussed earlier would also have to be downplayed or censored, as these can lead to the disturbing thought that some “stereotypes are accurate in both content and degree.” (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008, p.420)

In conclusion, this essay was not about the plight of the heroin addicted individuals suffering social stigma in Australia. It was about the overly politically correct culture that seems to be inhibiting the fundamental principal of psychological science. The focus of psychology should be understanding the human psyche, and denying parts of it that are now considered unacceptable or unpleasant interferes with this process. Quotes from an otherwise well written text book (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008) do more than illustrate this point; “…reluctantly come to the conclusion that prejudice is natural” (p.441), and “Such generalizations appeal to the lazy mind…” (p.418). Simply put there is no such thing as a “nonprejudiced” person; all human interaction works on assumptions. No matter how many times you break down barriers new ones will form. Presently it is unacceptable to openly divide people according to race, so people have started dividing by weight. Break that barrier and people will be divided by where they live, by their religion, whether they speak the same language, their intelligence, their political views and what university they attend. Less controversially, people will give preferential treatment to members of their family, therefore having a relative prejudice against all those not in their family. There will always be division between people, by definition all people cannot be in the ‘us’ category. Also there will always be competition for resources, whether is for the most attractive mate or globally dwindling oil supplies, which will increase hostility between both groups and individuals. I am not putting forward the idea that prejudice is a good thing or that arbitrary discrimination is productive. I am simply pointing out that an over awareness of the dominant political culture inhibits scientific thinking, and attempting to rid the world of prejudice is a frivolous pursuit.



References

Baumeister, R.F. and Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social Psychology and Human Nature. California, USA: Thompson Wadsworth

Brown, J. (2004). The Los Angeles Diaries: A Memoir. New York: Harper Collins Publishers Inc.

Coomber, R., and Maher, L. (2006) Street-Level Drug Market Activity in Sydney’s Primary Heroin Markets: Organization, Adulteration Practises, Pricing, Marketing and Violence. Journal of Drug Issues, 36(3): 719-753.

Deckers, L. (2005). Motivation: Biological, Psychological, and Environmental (2nd Ed). Boston, USA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Deschenes, E., Anglin, M.D., and Speckart, G. (1991) Narcotics addiction: Related criminal careers, social and economic costs. Journal of Drug Issues, 21(2): 383-411.

Faupel, C. F. (1987). Heroin Use and Criminal Careers. Qualitative Sociology, 10(2): 115-132.

Hammersley, R. and Morrison, V. (1987). Effects of Polydrug Use on the Criminal Activities of Heroin-users. British Journal of Addiction, 82: 899-906

Kanahara, S. (2006) A Review of the Definitions of Stereotype and a Proposal for a Progressional Model. Individual Differences Research, 4(5): p306-321.

Rowe, J. (2005) From Deviant to Disenfranchised: The evolution of drug users in AJSI
Australian Journal of Social Issues; 40(1): 107-123.


[1] See http://www.justiceforkurt.com/ for details on his “suicide”