http: //www.lilithland.

net 1

Running head: ROMANTIC LOVE IN HETEROSEXUAL

Romantic Love in

Heterosexual Couples

Property of Lilith Land

http://www.lilithland.net
http: //www.lilithland.net 2

Abstract

The focus of this paper is the subject of romantic relationships from the standpoint of

social psychology. This literature review examines the topic of romantic love from

evolutionary mate selection to the psychology of interpersonal attraction, Sternberg’s

triangular theory of love, and the neurobiology of limerence. Within the field of

evolutionary psychology, mate selection is concerned with the various qualities that are

important in determining an appropriate romantic partner. Reproduction is regarded as

one of the most important components of the theory of evolution (Fisher, 1996).

Sternberg’s research focused on the concept that love consists of three elements: 1.

Intimacy 2. Passion 3. Decision/commitment (Sternberg, 1986). New directions in

romantic love research such as MRI scans and internet dating were also explored.
http: //www.lilithland.net 3

Romantic Love in Heterosexual Couples

Overview of Romantic love

Romantic love has traditionally been regarded as the domain of philosophers and

poets, rather than scientists. However, in recent years it has become the focus of intense

scientific scrutiny. The purpose of this paper is to examine heterosexual romantic love

from the perspective of social psychology. According to Coon (2005), social psychology

is concerned with the impact of the social environment on the individual. It seeks to

understand how human beings influence and are influenced by one another. Within the

subdiscipline of social psychology, romantic love has most often been studied under the

rubric of interpersonal attraction and relationship science. Interpersonal attraction is the

basis for most voluntary social relationships. Interpersonal attraction is enhanced by both

similarity and propinquity, which refers to the tendency to develop relationships with

individuals that we see often, or that live near us (Coon, 2005).

Romantic love has been described as an intense, overwhelming, affective state

that causes the lover to be deeply absorbed by the beloved. The person who is in love

feels attached to the object of his/her affections and may swing between extremes of

euphoria, apprehension, uncertainty, and elation. Psychologist Dorothy Tennov (1979)

referred to this state as limerence and stated that the limerent individual was preoccupied

with thoughts of the beloved, to the point of obsession. Roughly 85 to 100 % of the

limerent individual’s day was spent thinking about the beloved (Tennov, 1979).

Romantic love is influenced by evolutionary antecedents, biochemistry, and socio-

cultural expectations.
http: //www.lilithland.net 4

Social Psychology/Relationship Science

Social psychology has a long history that began with the publishing of two texts

by William McDougall and E. A. Ross respectively (both books had the words social

psychology in their titles) in the early part of the 20 century. McDougall sought to

understand the role of human instincts within the framework of human evolution,

whereas; Ross was more interested in understanding social behavior as it related to

conformity. As a subdiscipline, it really began to flourish in the 1930s and 1940s.

Important contributors to the field were Kurt Lewin, Otto Klineberg and Gordon Allport.

Social psychology sought to understand such complex phenomena as group dynamics,

conformity, prejudice, and interpersonal attraction. The early social psychologists

focused their attentions on humanism, scientific empiricism, and the resolution of social

problems (Smith, 2005). Relationship science is associated with social psychology, but is

not exclusively affiliated with the discipline. According to Berscheid, “Relationship

science clearly is essential to the further development of social psychology. The ultimate

intended destination of social psychological insights has always been the understanding

of people behaving in their natural habitat…” (Berscheid, 1999, p. 263). Relationship

science is a very broad multidisciplinary field that encompasses social psychology,

counseling, marital/family therapy, anthropology, sociology, and even economics.

Relationship science seeks to understand how relationships work, why and how we love,

and what effect close relationships have on our lives. According to Berscheid (1999), it

provides a bridge between the psychologists who are scholars and the psychologists who

are practitioners. Most research indicates that one of the most important elements in

anyone’s life is the quality of their close relationships, and the majority of people who
http: //www.lilithland.net 5

enter psychotherapy do so due to distressing personal relationships. It makes since for the

practitioner to have a firm scientific foundation in understanding relationship dynamics.

The building of that foundation would be the focus of the psychologist as scholar

(Berscheid, 1999).

Interpersonal Attraction/ Homogamy

Stanley Schachter’s classic tome The Psychology of Affiliation: Experimental

Studies of the Sources of Gregariousness is an example of early research in relationship

science. In this work, he observed that most social science research focuses on the

associations that people develop (Schachter, 1959, as cited in Berscheid, 1999). A good

example of early research in mate selection is Schooley’s (1936) study of marital

homogamy (which is the tendency to marry people who are similar to ourselves). In this

study, she examined 80 married couples and found that they tended to manifest similar

personality traits and that the couples became more alike with age. This tendency toward

similarity is one feature that universally shows up in interpersonal attraction. People tend

to be attracted to those who are more like themselves in terms of age, intelligence, and

physical attractiveness. This is true both for friendships and romantic partners (Houts,

Robins & Huston, 1996). Homogamy is a topic that has interested researchers for some

time. According to Schooley (1936), this topic has been studied by Galton, Jung, and

Jones. Her study examined couples on several dimensions of similarity including

intelligence, appearance, personality, and socioeconomic status. According to her

findings, the couples matched the most in the areas of intelligence and age. Personality

traits were less correlative (Schooley, 1936).

http: //www.lilithland.net 6

In the 1950s, Reik (1957) investigated the concept of homogamy, and his results

differed from Schooleys. According to Reik, (1957), people tend to become attracted to

those who have qualities that they value but lack. He argued for the existence of a

complimentary hypothesis in regards to personality traits (i.e., opposites attract).

According to Reik (1957), people tend to fall in love due to dissatisfaction with the self.

This dissatisfaction drove them to ameliorate their deficiencies by identifying with an

ideal exemplifying other. Mathes and Moore (1985) decided to test his hypothesis in a

study conducted in the 1980s. They did find support for his hypothesis with some

qualifications. For example, they discovered that individuals with low self-esteem were

more likely to be attracted to individuals with complimentary traits, whereas; individuals

with high self-esteem were more attracted to those similar to themselves (Mathis &

Moore, 1985).

Along a similar vein, Fromm (1956) postulated the view that romantic love was

based on the union of opposites, which is based on gender role polarization. According to

Critelli, Myers, and Loos (1986) Fromm’s theory emphasized a view of love based on

romantic dependency, sexual compatibility and physical arousal, whereas; non-gender

polarized relationships would emphasize respect, communication, and intimacy.

The research on partner attributes continued into the 1990s with Godwin and

Tang’s (1991) small study that looked at the topic from an unusual angle. These

researchers decided to investigate the differences between attribute preference between

friends and lovers and between different cultures. This research project raised some

interesting questions that could point to further research, but was limited in applicability

due to small sample size. According to Godwin and Tang (1991), there is a scarcity of
http: //www.lilithland.net 7

research regarding cross-cultural criteria for mate or friendship selection. The researchers

conducted a small study of Chinese and English students and looked at what qualities the

participants found desirable in a friend and in a mate. The researchers pointed out that the

sample was small: 40 British students, and 48 Chinese students and further research

needed to be conducted. The researchers found cultural differences between the two

groups, as well as similarities. For example, both groups expected that a romantic partner

would be more caring and honest than a friend (Godwin & Tang, 1991).

Mate Selection

As mentioned earlier, relationship science approaches the topic of romantic love

from a broad, muli-disciplinary standpoint. Romantic love is a topic of interest to

psychologists, sociologists, and anthropologists etc. One interesting line of research has

focused on the role that evolution plays in mate selection. In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote

the On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. This revolutionary tome

popularized the theory of evolution. Darwin believed that human beings evolved over

time and that attributes that enabled the species to survive and reproduce tended to be

transferred from parent to offspring. This led some species to thrive by helping them

adapt to their environment; other species did not adapt to their environment and died out.

This was referred to as natural selection (Sulloway, 2005).

Evolutionary psychology is a rather recent trend in the field of psychology, and

it looks at the role that evolution has played in shaping the human mind and body.

Romantic love and mate selection is frequent topic of interest. According to Buss (1998),

because of the significance of reproduction to evolution certain sex linked characteristics

are the focus of evolutionary selection pressure. These characteristics are adaptive and
http: //www.lilithland.net 8

enable the species to survive. Evolutionary psychologists argue for the existence of

sexual selection to explain certain differences between the sexes. According to this

theory, features that allow the individual to successfully mate and reproduce viable

offspring tend to be favored in a kind of sexual survival of the fittest. Corresponding, in

this mating game, men and women have developed different and divergent strategies for

successful reproduction.

According to Buss (1998), these differing strategies have taken the following

forms: 1.Uncertain paternity – males can not conclusively identify a claimed offspring as

their own. 2. Females are more reproductively valuable because of their shortened

reproductive life and smaller number of eggs. 3 Males benefit from mating with younger

and more numerous females 4. Females benefit by mating with males who have greater

economic resources.

The best evidence for the existence of differing evolutionary strategies for men

and women comes from cross-cultural and cross species studies. Some of these studies do

support the suppositions of the evolutionary psychologists. For example, some research

has shown a tendency for males to prefer causal sex, while females tend to place more

emphasis on the status and economic resources of a perspective suitor. In addition, males

are more upset if a romantic partner is sexually rather than emotionally unfaithful, while

females find emotional infidelity to be more distressing than sexual (Buss, 1998).

However, according to Eagly (1997), there are several holes in this version of the

human evolutionary heritage. For example, she stated that much of our scientific

theorizing in regards to sex differences and evolution remains at the level of conjecture.

Furthermore, the evidence that does exist can be interpreted in a variety of ways i.e.,
http: //www.lilithland.net 9

“reconstructions assuming that similarity of women and men was adaptive in these

critical periods are plausible” (Eagly, 1997, p. 1380). For example, though traditional

theories of evolution would seem to favor polygyny, anthropologist Helen Fisher (1996)

has asserted that most human cultures are monogamous. Fisher has promulgated the view

that, as a species, we lean toward serial monogamy. This is the theory that we generally

mate with an appropriate partner in order to produce a viable offspring, part, and then

mate with another suitable partner and hopefully produce another viable offspring

(Fisher, 1996).

Research on Romantic Love

In a later article Fisher (2000), also postulated the existence of three primary

emotive systems for mating and reproduction. These systems are lust, attraction, and

attachment. Lust is the actual sex drive driven by androgens, attraction could be defined

as a passionate focused attention on a potential mating partner, and attachment could be

defined as a desire for emotional union with the love object. According to Fisher (2000),

the sex drive evolved in order to motivate the organism to seek sexual gratification to

ensure the propagation of the species. The attraction system appears to give the organism

a focus for his/her libido, which is a way of conserving mating energy. This system is

primarily associated with the neurotransmitters dopamine and the catecholamines. The

attachment system promotes pair bonding and nest building and is associated with the

need for affiliation. This emotive system is correlated with high levels of neuropeptides

like oxytocin and vasopressin (Fisher, 2000).

Sternberg (1986) postulated an earlier theory that also promoted the theory of

three components of love. Sternberg’s (1986) research focused on the concept that love
http: //www.lilithland.net 10

consists of three elements: 1. intimacy- the since of being connected to one’s love object,

feelings of closeness, etc. 2. passion – this refers to feelings of sexual attraction, and

physical desire. 3. decision/commitment- this refers to one’s decision to commit oneself

to the object of one’s beloved. Not all relationships contain all of these elements in the

same ratio with the same intensity. In addition, the feeling of intimacy, and the cognitive

component of commitment tend to be more stable than the transience of passion.

Sternberg believed that love derives from both biological instincts and social learning

theory. He examined love within the context of different types of relationships, from

close friends to passionate romantic partners.

Sternberg believed that these three components form a type of triangle with each

side representing a component of love. The shape of the triangle was dictated by the

varying degrees of the components. For example, Sternberg asserted that there were

several different kinds of love, due to the different ratios of the three components. He

listed several different kinds of love including: 1. Nonlove- this indicates an absence of

any of the components of love 2. Liking- this is typical of relationships where there is

intimacy, but no passion or commitment. This would be typical of friendships. 3.

Infatuated love- this is similar to what Tennov (1979) called limerence. It is characterized

by passion sans intimacy or commitment and is often described as love at first sight. 4.

Empty love- this is a love that is devoid of passion or intimacy, but does have the element

of commitment. Often times, this is what is left in long-term relationships that are in the

process of dying. 5. Romantic love- this love is characterized by intimacy and passion

sans commitment. 6. Companionate love- this type of love contains intimacy and

commitment without any passion. This kind of love is often seen in long-term committed
http: //www.lilithland.net 11

relationships after the passion has faded. 7. Fatuous love- this type of relationship

contains passion and commitment with out any real intimacy. This situation is often seen

in the phenomenon of the whirlwind romance that fades fast. 8. Consummate love- this is

the ultimate connection. It contains passion, intimacy, and commitment. For many, it is

the ideal scenario.

New Directions in Love Research

Due to the proliferation in technology over the last few years, research in

romantic love has taken some exciting new directions. New technology has been used to

examine romantic love at the biological and biochemical levels. Bartels and Zeki (2000)

conducted a small study that used fMRI scans to examine the brains of those purported to

be in love. In this study, the researchers showed pictures of loved ones (both friends and

lovers) to a group of participants during a brain scan. The group was composed of 17

participants (11 females and 6 males). It was found that the brain showed activity in two

main cortical areas while viewing lovers. These areas were the middle insula and the

anterior cingulated cortex. Bartels and Zeki pointed out that in “studies of cocaine and

mu-opioid agonist induced euphoria have shown increased activity in foci that seem to

overlap with all the foci activated in our study” (Bartels & Zeki, 2000, p. 3834). This

indicated a biological correlation between romantic love and drug induced euphoria. The

scans revealed some differences between the viewings of friends and romantic partners.

The amygdaloid region was much more active when a friend was viewed, rather than a

lover was viewed. The researchers expressed surprise that the activity in the brain

generated by feelings of romantic love seemed to be limited by both area and spatial

extent (Bartels & Zeki, 2000).

http: //www.lilithland.net 12

In a more recent study, Houran, Lange, Rentfrow and Bruckner (2004) explored

the phenomenon of online dating. The advent of the internet has introduced a new venue

for romantic relationships. Within the last few years, there has been a proliferation of

online dating services. According to market research, between 2001 and 2002 consumers

tripled their spending on internet dating sites. In addition, 22 % of American singles used

internet dating sites by 2002. Some consumer researchers have predicted that by 2007

online daters will have spent $ 640 million on internet personals (Houran et al., 2004). A

few of these sites (e.g., Chemistry.com, Match.com, and eHarmony.com) have

personality assessments that online daters can take. The online dating site’s claim that

their personality inventories are based on scientific research and that subscribers are

matched based on a high level of compatibility. In essence, these sites reinforce the idea

that romantic compatibility is based on homogamy, since they match daters based on

similar personality traits (Houran et al., 2004).

Houran et al. (2004) reported that the claims made by the online sites have not

been substantiated. For example, the specific study that eHarmony uses as the foundation

for their system has serious design flaws in both research and methodology. Two

researchers (Carter & Snow, 2004) in connection with eHarmony.com presented

preliminary validity data that purported to substantiate eHarmony.com’s claims. This

paper was presented at the 16 Annual Convention of the American Psychological

Society. Houran et al. (2004) found issues with some of their findings. For example,

Carter and Snow (2004) examined a sample of newlyweds who had met through

eHarmony.com and compared them with a group that had not met through the site. This

study was conducted in order to prove the site’s success. The assumption was made that
http: //www.lilithland.net 13

through using this site these individuals had been able to develop successful

relationships. However, using marriage as the main criteria for relationship success is not

only problematic, but limited in applicability. Marriage in and of itself does no prove

relationship success because most marriages do not last. The divorce rate is over 50 %,

and most couples divorce within five years. In addition, this line of research ignores gay,

lesbian, and other non-marital heterosexual unions. According to Houran et al. (2004)

there could be some issues regarding sampling bias as well. The sort of individuals who

join an online dating site like eHarmony.com may have a higher degree of motivation and

commitment than those who meet through random chance, and this could affect the

study’s results. In addition, Houran et al (2004) found issues with the personality

inventories used to match subscribers. According to Houran et al. (2004) there is very

little scientific evidence that the psychometric properties of the independent and

dependant variables used in these matching systems are effective. In fact, most of the

online dating services do not publish the psychometric properties of their assessments or

make their methodology known to the public. Houran et al. (2004) recommended the

application of IRT and Rasch scaling methodologies to both develop and validate online

personality assessments.

Summary/Conclusion

To summarize the salient points, within the subdiscipline of social psychology,

romantic love has been studied under the rubric of interpersonal attraction and

relationship science. It has also been the focus of the new subdiscipline of evolutionary

psychology. It has been defined as an intense absorption in another person that has

evolutionary, biochemical and social correlates. Early research in the area focused on
http: //www.lilithland.net 14

homogamy and assortive mating. Schooley’s (1936) research found support for the theory

of homogamy, while both Reik (1957) and Fromm (1956) postulated a complimentary

hypothesis regarding romantic attraction. Some evolutionary psychologists have argued

that men and women have evolved divergent mating strategies that influence their choice

in mating partners. Sternberg (1986) promoted a triangular theory of love that consisted

of three components: intimacy, passion and commitment. Recent trends in relationship

science have focused on the biology of love. Bartels and Zeki (2000) found that areas of

the brain are activated when looking at a picture of one’s romantic partner and that this

differed from the areas activated when looking at a picture of a friend. Their research

found some correlation between romantic love and drug induced euphoria. Houran et al.

(2004) examined online dating assessments and found several issues with methodology

and research.

There are several areas of potential research that seem to be overlooked in the

literature. For example, this researcher would like to see more research conducted that

examines the connection between love and friendship, gay and lesbians issues, and

gender and attraction. Some pertinent questions to ask would be: Do people who have

more successful friendships have more successful romantic lives? Are there certain

personality traits that make for more successful relationships? How do relationships

differ for gays and lesbians in comparison to heterosexuals? Research conducted in these

areas could provide both a richer and a more inclusive foundation for relationship

science.
http: //www.lilithland.net 15

References

Bartels, A., & Zeki, S. (2000). The neural basis of romantic love. Neuro Reports, 11(17),

3829-3834. Retrieved May 16, 2007 from, the Internet.

Berscheid, E. (1999). The greening of relationship science. American Psychologist,

54(4), 260-267. Retrieved May 15, 2007 from, PsycARTICLES database.

Buss, D. M. (1998). Sexual strategies theory: Historical origins and current status.

Journal Sex Research, 35(1), 19-31. Retrieved May 16, 2007 from, Academic

Search Premier database.

Coon, D. (2005). Psychology: A journey (2nd ed.) Belmont: Thomson Learning Inc.

Critelli, J. W., Myers, E. J., & Loos, V. E. (1986). The components of love: Romantic

attraction and sex role orientation. Journal of Personality, 54(2), 354-371.

Retrieved May 16, 2007 from Academic Search Premier database.

Eagly. A.H. (1997). Sex differences in social behavior: Comparing social role theory and

evolutionary psychology. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1380-1383. Retrieved

May15, 2007 from, Academic Search Premier database.

Fisher, H. (1996).The origin of romantic love and human family life. National Forum,

76(1), 31-35. Retrieved March 22, 2007 from, Academic Search Premier

database.

Fisher, H. (2000). Lust, attraction, attachment: Biology and evolution of the three

Primary emotion systems for… Journal of Sex Education & Therapy, 25(1), 96-
http: //www.lilithland.net 16

103. Retrieved May 15, 2007 from Academic Search Premier database.

Fromm, E. (1956). The art of loving. New York: Bantam Books.

Goodwin, R., & Tang, D. (1991). Preferences for friends and close relationship partners:

A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Social Psychology, 131(4), 579-581.

Retrieved April 8, 2007 from, Academic Search Premier database.

Houran, J., Lange, R., Rentfrow, P. J., & Bruckner, K. H. (2004). Do online

matchmaking services work? An assessment of preliminary evidence for a

publicized ‘predictive model of marital success’. North American Journal of

Psychology, 6(3), 507-526. Retrieved April 7, 2007 from Academic Search

Premier database.

Houts, R. M., Robins, E., Huston, T. L. (1996). Compatibility and the development of

premarital relationships. Journal of Marriage & Family, 58(1), 7-20. Retrieved

May 18, 2007 from, Academic Search Premier database.

Mathes, E. W., Moore, C. L. (1985). Reik’s complementary theory of romantic love.

Journal of Social Psychology, 125(3), 321-328. Retrieved April 8, 2007 from

Academic Search Premier database.

Reik, T. (1957) Of love and lust. New York : Farrar, Straus, & Giroux Publishers.

Smith, B.M. (2005). “Personality and social psychology”: Retrospections and aspirations.

Personality and Social Psychology, 9(4), 334-340. Retrieved May 15, 2007 from

Academic Search Premier database.

Sternberg, R.J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93(2), 119

-135. Retrieved April 1, 2007 from PsycARTICLES Database.

Sulloway, F. (2005). The evolution of Charles Darwin. Smithsonian, 36(9), 58-69.

http: //www.lilithland.net 17

Retrieved May 18, 2007 from Academic Search Premier database.

Tennov, D. (1979). Love and limerence: The experience of being in love. New York:

Stein and Day.