Read My Partner's Diary They Hate Me

Introduction

Honey and hate are important human affects that are of long-standing interest in psychology. Increasingly, empirical research has been carried out on the human relationship between honey and hate. However, traditional psychological theories take mainly focused on dear, especially romantic dear. These include Sternberg'southward (1986) triangular theory of love and the three-stage model of beloved (Fisher, 1989; Fisher et al., 2006). Love has been divers as an action (Swensen, 1972), attitude (Rubin, 1970), experience (Skolnick, 1978), and even equally a prototypical emotion (Fehr and Russell, 1991; Postal service, 2002; Sober, 2002; Wyschogrod, 2002). Collectively, these definitions advise that love is a multi-faced phenomenon (Ekman, 1972; Izard, 1977; Tomkins, 1984). Hate, within the context of a romantic human relationship, arises mainly from a relational betrayal. Researchers have proposed a concept related to romantic hate, romantic jealousy, which describes the negative attitudes, acrimony, and fear associated with having a relationship partner (Yoshimura, 2004).

Love and detest are related to each other in a complex manner; the methodological approaches used by previous researchers have express effectiveness in exploring the intricate relationship between love and hate. In addition, there has been little enquiry on the psychological mechanisms that could explain the interrelations between love and hate. Therefore, our report investigates how these 2 affects are related. To pursue such a research objective, one must consider how best to induce varying levels of feelings of love.

Previous studies have plant that attraction is a crucial status for the evolution of romantic love (Cutler et al., 1998; Braxton-Davis, 2010; Miller and Maner, 2010). Similarity, rather than complementarity, plays a central function in allure (Berscheid and Reis, 1998; Luo and Klohnen, 2005; Hudson et al., 2014). Many aspects of similarity take been studied in relation to attraction. In the current report, we focused on similarity in ideologies. That is, persons with similar ideologies (defined here in terms of values and interests) tend to class longer lasting and more harmonious relationships (Buunk and Bosman, 1986; Lemay and Clark, 2008). Ideological similarity also implies commonalities in behaviors which further contribute to mutual attraction in the context of romantic love (Schafer and Keith, 1990). From this perspective, similarity may be a central factor that influences the caste of love. In improver, researchers found that differences in excellence levels, such as those relating to ability and achievement, betwixt partners would besides be an important cistron influencing romantic relationships (Conroy-Beam et al., 2016).

In the present study, we manipulated the level of similarity and the level of excellence to induce unlike levels of love. That is, we concurrently varied the levels of similarity and excellence of different targets. We explored whether participants felt stronger dear for a target who was more than similar to themselves when the targets and participants were of the aforementioned level of excellence. Additionally, nosotros were likewise interested in whether participants accept different emotional reactions toward dissimilar target persons in the context of romantic love and detest.

Nosotros examined two research questions in the electric current inquiry. Showtime, would at that place be greater feelings of love between two persons if they were more like to each other? Second, nether sure conditions, does a person's love generate a corresponding level of hate when negative events occurred to his or her romantic partner?

In this study, we implemented a paradigm similar to what has been used in previous inquiry (Takahashi et al., 2009), and adapted the scenario method to induce love and hate. The characters in the scenario included one protagonist and three targets. Participants read the scenario and imagined that they were the protagonist and were in a romantic relationship with one of the target. We induced different levels of dearest past manipulating the caste of similarity (e.g., values and interests) and excellence (east.1000., ability and achievements) between the protagonist and target persons in the vignettes. We also induced detest using vignettes that showed target persons betraying the protagonist, such every bit going on dates or having affairs with people of the opposite-sex. We hypothesized that greater similarity between a participant (protagonist) and a target would be associated with greater feelings of love, and that when negative events occur with the protagonist's romantic partner, the target would be associated with greater feelings of hate.

Materials and Methods

Participants

60 volunteers, recruited from different colleges, participated in the experiment. I participant had misunderstood the instructions and was thus excluded from the analyses. As a result, the concluding studied sample consists of 59 participants (30 men, 29 women, age M = twenty.2 years, SD = 1.5). None of the participants reported whatever previous diagnoses of psychiatric or neurological illnesses. Roughly 18% of the participants said they were looking for a relationship, 33% were in a relationship, 24% had experienced a intermission-upwards, and the remaining 25% had not been in any relationships. The study was canonical by the Ideals Commission of the Schoolhouse of Psychology at South China Normal Academy. Each participant had provided written informed consent prior to participating in the experiment. They were also given small tokens of appreciation for their participation.

Materials

The vignettes used in the present experimental epitome were adapted from a previous study that investigated the neural correlates of envy and schadenfreude (Takahashi et al., 2009). The vignettes were modified to fit the nowadays romantic love context, according to the previous definitions of love (Hatfield and Sprecher, 1986; Schafer and Keith, 1990). The people in the vignettes included one protagonist and three targets (i.e., targets A, B, and C) corresponding to three manipulated atmospheric condition (see Supplementary Material). Participants were asked to written report and sympathise the vignettes thoroughly and to imagine themselves as the protagonist in the vignettes. Target A was described every bit a person of equal level of excellence and high similarity to the protagonist, target B as equal level of excellence and low similarity to the protagonist, and target C every bit depression level of excellence and low similarity to the protagonist (target C). See Supplementary Table S1 for details.

Questionnaire

We used the 15-particular Passionate Dear Scale (PLS; Hatfield and Sprecher, 1998) to measure the degree of love evoked past each participant in the vignettes. An case of an item in the PLS is, "I would rather be with him/her than anyone else…" Participants rated each item according to the degree of passionate love they perceived (1 = none; ix = extremely passionate beloved). The PLS is suitable for individuals who are and are not in a relationship, and for individuals who take never been in a romantic relationship (Hatfield and Sprecher, 1986; Aron et al., 2005). The reliability and validity of this scale have been established in previous studies (Hatfield and Sprecher, 1986; Fehr, 1988; Hendrick and Hendrick, 1989; Fehr and Russell, 1991). Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.94 in the present written report.

Procedures

Learning Materials

The experiment consisted of two parts. We induced feelings of love toward the targets in the participants (the protagonists) in Office 1 (Figure one), and feelings of detest toward the targets in Part 2 (Effigy 2).

Effigy 1. Part 1 consisted of three phases: studying the materials, rating on the computer, and completing the PLS. This effigy presents a schematic delineation of the stimuli and rating task design of Part 1 (love). Kickoff, a fixation cross hair was presented for 1000 ms followed by the experimental stimuli (Lover A, Lover B, and Lover C) that were displayed for 2000 ms or until response. The top line in each stimuli-containing rectangle indicated a target person, the center line indicated the domain of comparison (excellence and similarity), and the lesser line indicated the specific traits in these two domains.

FIGURE two. Part 2 consisted of ii phases: rating on the computer and completing the PLS. This figure presents a schematic depiction of the stimuli and rating task blueprint of Part 2 (detest). Specific traits of Lover A, Lover B, and Lover C were presented equally in Part 1. Each trait was followed by a subsequent negative event, which was presented for 2000 ms or until response. The pinnacle line indicated a target person, and the bottom line indicated a negative event. A 1000 ms inter-stimulus interval was interleaved between each trait and negative issue.

First, participants were asked to read a story and imagine that they were the protagonist (run across Supplementary Fabric). Next, the participants were asked to call up relevant key details well-nigh themselves past responding to sentences start with "I am…" Following this, participants were instructed to read iii vignettes describing three dissimilar situations. Each vignette involved the protagonist and 3 targets. Participants were asked to call up the data relating to each target through gratis recall. Participants were then asked to imagine that they were in a romantic relationship with the target.

Ratings and Measurements

We used E-Prime ii.0 to present the items in a random order [we included 15 core items from each vignette into the reading materials of each target (see Supplementary Table S1)]. After the participants studied the materials, they completed the rating task on the figurer then completed the PLS in both Part 1 and Part 2. Participants gave i love score per item per target person in Office 1 and i hate score per negative event per target person in Part 2, also every bit two PLS scores before and after the negative events.

In Part 1, we asked participants to imagine themselves every bit the protagonist when reading the scenario, and then rate each trait presented in terms of how much honey they felt toward a target based on the presented features of the three targets (ane = none; 6 = farthermost dearest). After that, we used the PLS to measure participants' feelings of beloved with the three targets.

In Part 2 of the experiment, the background characteristics of A, B, and C were unchanged; nonetheless, we created vignettes in which the targets betrayed the protagonist, for example by having an affair with someone of the opposite sexual activity (see the negative events in Supplementary Table S1). Participants were then asked to rate how much detest they felt toward A, B, and C (1 = none; half-dozen = extreme hate). Upon completion of Part ii, participants completed the PLS again to appraise their feelings of love toward the three targets.

Analysis

We used several analyses to test our hypotheses. The scores from love ratings, hate ratings, and the PLS items were averaged within subjects prior to the analyses. Specifically, nosotros used one-way repeated measures of analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test for differences in participants' love ratings, hate ratings, and PLS scores for targets A, B, and C; these analyses were conducted for scenarios with and without expose (Part ane and 2). Simple event tests were performed when the interaction consequence was significant.

Additionally, we used a 3 (target: A, B, and C) × 2 (fourth dimension: before vs. after) ii-mode repeated measures ANOVA to analyze the degree of dear level perceived by the protagonist in relation to the iii targets before and after the negative events. Next, we used a 3 (target: A, B, and C) × 2 (affect: love vs. hate) two-manner repeated measures ANOVA to analyze the relationship between the dearest and hate scores. Tests of simple master effects were performed when an interaction outcome was statistically significant. In addition, we used Pearson's correlation assay to examination the correlations between scores for love and hate. Subsequently, nosotros used partial correlations to examine the association between love and hate controlling for participants' gender and age.

Results

Degree of Love

Across the unlike weather (targets A, B, and C), the results of the ane-mode repeated measures ANOVA revealed significant differences in perceived feelings of honey [F(2,116) = 985.710, p < 0.001, η² = 0.944]. Further analyses of the simple main effects showed that the degree of love toward target A (5.53 ± 0.48) was significantly higher than that of target B (4.52 ± 0.54) [F(1,58) = 177.796, p < 0.001, η² = 0.754], and the degree of love toward B was significantly higher than that of target C (ane.66 ± 0.45) [F(1,58) = 977.526, p < 0.001, η² = 0.944].

Additionally, beyond the different targets, the results of the one-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed significant differences in participants' PLS scores of the 3 targets [F(2,116) = 450.352, p < 0.001, η² = 0.886]. Further analyses of the unproblematic main effects showed that the degree of passionate love toward target A (109.73 ± 11.eighty) was significantly higher than that of target B (93.46 ± 14.59) [F(1,58) = 60.263, p < 0.001, η² = 0.510], and the degree of passionate beloved toward target B was significantly higher than that of target C (38.39 ± 20.40) [F(1,58) = 519.537, p < 0.001, η^two = 0.900].

Degree of Hate

Beyond the different targets, the results of the one-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed significant differences in the degree of hate after the negative upshot manipulation [F(2,116) = 229.64, p < 0.001, η^two = 0.798]. Further analyses of the uncomplicated main effects showed that the degree of hate toward target A (5.25 ± 0.57) was significantly higher than that of target B (4.84 ± 0.55) [F(1,58) = 34.768, p < 0.001, η² = 0.375], and the degree of hate toward target B was significantly higher than that of target C (3.02 ± 0.98) [F(1,58) = 216.921, p < 0.001, η^two = 0.789].

Across the different targets, the results of the ane-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed significant differences of the overall PLS scores after the negative event manipulation [F(ii,116) = 316.544, p < 0.001, η² = 0.845]. Further analyses of the simple main effects showed that the PLS score for target A (88.95 ± 22.00) was significantly higher than that of target B (71.97 ± 21.83) [F(1,58) = 63.119, p < 0.001, ηⁱⁱ = 0.521], and the score for target B was significantly higher than that of target C (27.81 ± 14.39) [F(one,58) = 333.357, p < 0.001, η² = 0.852].

The iii (targets: A, B, C) × ii (time: before vs. later on) two-mode repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant target × time interaction [F(2,116) = 10.432, p < 0.001, ηⁱⁱ = 0.152] on PLS scores. Farther simple main effect analyses revealed that subsequently the negative issue manipulation, participants' love scores for target A was significantly lower than before the manipulation [A-Before: 109.73 ± eleven.80, A-After: 88.95 ± 22.00; F(1,58) = 74.822, p < 0.001, η^two = 0.560]. Similarly, participants' beloved scores for target B [B-Earlier: 93.46 ± fourteen.59, B-After: 71.97 ± 21.83; F(one,58) = 68.179, p < 0.001, η² = 0.540] and target C were besides significantly lower than before the manipulation [C-Before: 38.39 ± 20.40, C-Afterward: 27.81 ± 14.39; F(ane,58) = 27.842, p < 0.001, η² = 0.324].

Love and Hate

The 3 (targets: A, B, C) × two (affect: beloved vs. hate) two-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed a meaning target × impact interaction [F(2,116) = 95.357, p < 0.001, ηⁱⁱ = 0.622]. Further simple effect analyses found that participants' love of target A was significantly higher than that of detest, even if they were betrayed by target A [A-Love: 5.53 ± 0.48, A-Hate: 5.25 ± 0.57; F(i,58) = 17.889, p < 0.001, η² = 0.236]. Conversely, participants' love for target B was significantly lower than that of hate [B-Love: iv.52 ± 0.54, B-Hate: four.84 ± 0.55; F(1,58) = xiv.652, p < 0.001, η² = 0.202]. Similarly, participants' love for target C was too significantly lower than that of hate [C-Dearest: 1.66 ± 0.45, C-Detest: 3.02 ± 0.98; F(one,58) = 102.933, p < 0.001, η² = 0.640] (Effigy 3).

FIGURE iii. The honey and hate level of all participants in response to the 3 (targets: A, B, C) × 2 (affect: honey, hate) two-ways repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant target × affect interaction. Error bars stand for +1 standard error (SE). Participants' degree of love for A (excellent and loftier similarity with the participants) was still college than detest after negative events occurred, but the tendency for B (excellent and moderate similarity) and C (depression excellence and low similarity) is opposite.

Furthermore, the Pearson correlation analyses showed significant relationships between participants' love and hate toward target A (r = 0.55; p < 0.001). Participants' dearest and hate toward target B (r = 0.29; p < 0.05). However, the correlation between participants' love and detest toward target C was not pregnant (r = 0.12; p > 0.05). The corresponding partial correlation analyses revealed like results (A: r = 0.48, p < 0.001; B: r = 0.27, p < 0.05; C: r = 0.12; p > 0.05).

Word

This study used an experimental paradigm to written report the relationship between romantic beloved and hate. The current study provided support for a link between the ii affects and insights into the influence of similarity in romantic relationships. We institute that people have different emotional reactions toward unlike target persons in the context of romantic love and hate. The human relationship betwixt romantic love and hate was revealed to be more complex than expected.

First, our results showed that feelings of love were influenced by similarity. That is, individuals, who were experimentally induced to experience feelings of beloved, felt stronger love toward someone of the opposite sexual practice who was similar to them, thus, supporting our commencement hypothesis. Previous studies have examined whether similarity or complementarity played a more vital function in mutual attraction (Berscheid and Reis, 1998) and concluded that the onetime was more important. This view has also been supported by research looking at mate preferences (Luo and Klohnen, 2005) and quality of marital relationships (Hudson et al., 2014).

Previous studies had mostly recruited couples or partners who were already in a human relationship, and there is piddling straight evidence on whether the similarity of the 2 individuals had a crucial role in the evolution of a romantic relationship. A contempo report (Conroy-Axle et al., 2016) reported that mate value discrepancies predicted relationship satisfaction. To some extent, they considered the equivalence in social status betwixt both partners to exist an important factor relating to relationship satisfaction. In our report, however, when the participants were presented with two potential partners equal to them in excellence, participants perceived greater honey for the one who was more than like to themselves. Relatedly, similarity also played an of import role in mate selection. Our findings complemented the findings of other research in this expanse. Individuals who were similar to each other easily formed adept impressions of each other inside a short time. This finding combined with results of previous studies suggests that similarity plays a vital role in allure, regardless of situations involving "love at first sight" or impressions based on long-term exchanges.

Second, we plant pregnant associations betwixt romantic love and hate in the context of a romantic relationship. When presented with negative events with three different target persons, participants nigh hated the person whom they had loved the virtually previously. Therefore, love and detest are indeed related. As Alford (2005) proposed, hate is an fake of beloved and also a type of relationship with others and oneself. That is, in managing their relationships with others, people are at the same time managing themselves and their psyches (Alford, 2005). In the context of an private'south love and hate, when the relationship one had developed with a particular partner was destroyed, the romantic dearest consequently turned into hate. Especially from the perspectives of immature couples in romantic relationships, hate is also a reflection of love.

The relationship between love and hate tin exist explained from different perspectives. Romantic hate may be rooted in romantic jealousy. Previous enquiry proposed emotional jealousy and cognitive jealousy equally constituents of romantic jealousy. Emotional jealousy reflects the anger and fear of the individual in dearest, while cognitive jealousy mainly relates to the individual's negative attitude to lovers (Yoshimura, 2004). Therefore, we speculate that it is a lover's expose that causes anger and other negative emotions, resulting in detest. Moreover, cerebral jealousy is directly related to relationship dissatisfaction between lovers (Elphinston et al., 2013). Previous studies take also institute a positive relationship betwixt romantic dear and jealousy. That is, the more one loves a person, the more than sensitive one becomes when encountering threats to the relationship (Mathes and Severa, 1981; Orosz et al., 2015). Thus, individuals experience more love and more hatred toward the same lover.

The observed miracle of "the deeper the honey, the deeper the hate" may also exist attributed to the perception of equity imbalance. Researchers have proposed the concept of "perception of disinterestedness" based on equity theory and state that equity can exist achieved past changing one's perception of investments in the relationship or its results (Walster et al., 1973). Co-ordinate to equity theory, equity is calculated from both the individual'southward inputs and the resulting outcomes (Hatfield et al., 1979). Thus, in our context, the more ane loves a person, the more psychological investment 1 makes. However, when at that place is an imbalance between the individual'southward inputs and outcomes, the perception of equity is lost, thus, resulting in a change of perception between hate and love.

At the same fourth dimension, our results showed a significant interaction between targets (A vs. B vs. C) and affects (dear vs. hate). Farther analyses revealed that an individual's caste of honey for target A (equal excellence and loftier similarity with the protagonist) is still higher than the caste of hate after negative event manipulation, but the results were reversed for target B (equal excellence and low similarity with the protagonist) and target C (unequal excellence and low similarity with the protagonist). In other words, although the three targets were associated with the same negative events, the level of hatred varied across the three targets. If, initially, the individual loved the target the most, the caste of love is still higher than that of hate later the negative consequence. All the same, when the individual did not love the target as much initially, the caste of honey would exist markedly lower than that of hate.

These results illustrate the complexity associated with romantic beloved and hate. People have different emotional reactions toward dissimilar target persons in the context of romantic love and hate. For the person whom 1 loves the most or fifty-fifty hates, love may still be dominant in the context of betrayal. This hate is a reflection of dear and a feeling of sorrow. Yet, for the person one does not love, feelings of hate are stronger than those of dearest. This hate perhaps has its roots in the moral dimension, which mainly concern social judgments well-nigh the quality of a person. This is why people feel such pain upon betrayal in a romantic relationship.

Graham and Clark (2006) establish that individuals who look at a human relationship as "all good" or "all bad" have lower cocky-esteem compared to others. These individuals also have long-term concerns about whether their partners are willing to accept them in a closed relationship. The authors proffered this every bit the reason backside dearest and hate, and that this phenomenon could be observed in any relationship. Needless to say, the complex precursors of love and hate tin can be interpreted in many ways. Perhaps equally some of the most ubiquitous emotions, people demand to comprehend and explicate love and detest objectively and rationally. Although nosotros study the nature of love and hate from a rational signal of view and from an emotional perspective to explain the precursors of these two basic emotions, humans are emotional beings.

In summary, we need to comprehend the human relationship between love and hate both rationally and emotionally. If we pay shut attending to detest, we can better understand love (Tjeltveit, 2003). This thought justified us carrying out the current study. Nevertheless, there are iii limitations to this study. First, fifty-fifty though we emphasized that the protagonist would be described in three different relationships in different periods of life, this manipulation could not guarantee that participants could generate independent feelings of beloved for the three target persons. 2nd, in order to maximize external validity of the written report, we did not control for participants' current relationship condition. In our futurity enquiry, we may explore whether human relationship condition predicts feelings of love and hate using this experimental paradigm. Third, the findings of the electric current written report were also limited by the manipulation of similarity between the participants and the three targets. The utilize of vignettes meant that the manipulation of similarity might have partly depended on how well the participants were able to imagine themselves as the protagonist in the vignettes.

Decision

Our results supported the thought that "the deeper the love, the deeper the hate," and suggested similarity as a crucial factor influencing feelings of love and hate. In addition, people have different emotional reactions toward different people in the context of romantic love and hate. For the person whom one loves or hates the nearly, dear may notwithstanding be dominant in the context of betrayal. However, for the person one does non love, feelings of hatred are stronger than those of love. This study as well provided support for the human relationship betwixt romantic love and hate, and highlighted the important role of similarity in moderating the relationship between love and detest.

Ethics Statement

The present study was approved by the Ethic Committee of the School of Psychology at South China Normal University. Each participant volunteered to accept part in this study and provided written informed consent earlier the commencement of the experiment.

Writer Contributions

WJ: study design, data collection, data analysis, and paper writing. YX and ML: study design and paper writing.

Funding

This work was supported by grants from National Social Science Foundation (14ZDB159); Project of Key Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences, MOE, (No. 16JJD190001).

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the inquiry was conducted in the absenteeism of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/x.3389/fpsyg.2017.01940/full#supplementary-fabric

References

Alford, C. F. (2005). "Hate is the faux of love," in The Psychology of Hate, ed. R. Sternberg (Washington, DC: APA), 235–254.

Google Scholar

Aron, A., Fisher, H., Mashek, D. J., Strong, G., Li, H., and Brownish, Fifty. L. (2005). Reward, motivation, and emotion systems associated with early-stage intense romantic love. J. Neurophysiol. 94, 327–337. doi: 10.1152/jn.00838.2004

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Berscheid, Eastward., and Reis, H. T. (1998). "Attraction and close relationships," in The Handbook of Social Psychology, eds D. T. Gilbert, Due south. T. Fiske, and G. Lindzey (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill), 193–281.

Google Scholar

Braxton-Davis, P. (2010). The social psychology of love and allure. McNair Scholars J. fourteen, six–10.

Google Scholar

Conroy-Beam, D., Goetz, C. D., and Osculation, D. Thousand. (2016). What predicts romantic relationship satisfaction and mate retention intensity: mate preference fulfillment or mate value discrepancies? Evol. Hum. Behav. 37, 440–448. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2016.04.003

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cutler, Westward. B., Friedmann, East., and McCoy, N. L. (1998). Pheromonal influences on sociosexual behavior in men. Arch. Sex. Behav. 27, 1–13. doi: 10.1097/00042192-199704040-00088

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ekman, P. (1972). "Universal and cultural differences in facial expressions of emotions," in Proceedings of the Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1971, ed. J. M. Cole (Lincoln, NE: Academy of Nebraska Press), 207–283.

Google Scholar

Elphinston, R. A., Feeney, J. A., Noller, P., Connor, J. P., and Fitzgerald, J. (2013). Romantic jealousy and human relationship satisfaction: the costs of rumination. Due west. J. Commun. 77, 293–304. doi: 10.1080/10570314.2013.770161

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fehr, B. (1988). Prototype analysis of the concepts of love and commitment. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 55:557. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.55.iv.557

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fehr, B., and Russell, J. A. (1991). The concept of beloved viewed from a epitome perspective. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 60:425. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.sixty.3.425

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fisher, H. Due east., Aron, A., and Brown, L. L. (2006). Romantic beloved: a mammalian brain organization for mate choice. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 361, 2173–2186. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2006.1938

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Graham, S. K., and Clark, M. S. (2006). Self-esteem and organization of valenced information near others: the" Jekyll and Hyde"-ing of relationship partners. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 90:652. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.ninety.four.652

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hatfield, Eastward., and Sprecher, S. (1998). "The passionate love scale," in Handbook of Sexuality-related Measures, eds T. D. Fisher, C. Thousand. Davis, W. Fifty. Yaber, and S. 50. Davis (One thousand Oaks, CA: Taylor & Francis), 449–451.

Google Scholar

Hatfield, Eastward., Utne, One thousand. M., and Traupmann, J. (1979). "Equity theory and intimate relationships," in Social Exchange in Developing Relationships, eds R. Burgess and T. L. Huston (New York, NY: Academic Printing), 99–133.

Google Scholar

Hendrick, C., and Hendrick, Southward. S. (1989). Research on love: does it measure upwards? J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 56:784. doi: ten.1037/0022-3514.56.5.784

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hudson, N. W., Fraley, R. C., Brumbaugh, C. C., and Vicary, A. Thousand. (2014). Coregulation in romantic partners' attachment styles a longitudinal investigation. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 40, 845–857. doi: 10.1177/0146167214528989

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lemay, E. P., and Clark, M. S. (2008). How the head liberates the heart: projection of communal responsiveness guides relationship promotion. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 94, 647–671. doi: x.1037/0022-3514.94.four.647

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Mathes, E. W., and Severa, Northward. (1981). Jealousy, romantic love, and liking: theoretical considerations and preliminary scale development. Psychol. Rep. 49, 23–31. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1981.49.ane.23

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Orosz, M., Szekeres,Á., Kiss, Z. One thousand., Farkas, P., and Roland-Lévy, C. (2015). Elevated romantic honey and jealousy if human relationship condition is declared on Facebook. Front. Psychol. 6:214. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00214

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Mail service, Southward. G. (2002). "The tradition of agape," in Altruism and Altruistic Honey: Science, Philosophy, eds S. G. Post, L. Yard. Underwood, J. P. Schloss, and Westward. B. Hurlbut (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Google Scholar

Schafer, R. B., and Keith, P. Chiliad. (1990). Matching by weight in married couples: a life bicycle perspective. J. Soc. Psychol. 130, 657–664. doi: 10.1080/00224545.1990.9922958

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Skolnick, A. (1978). The Intimate Surround: Exploring Marriage and the Family, 2nd Edn. Boston, MA: Little, Chocolate-brown and Company.

Google Scholar

Sober, E. (2002). "The ABCs of altruism," in Altruism and Donating Love, eds S. J. Post, L. G. Underwood, J. P. Schloss, and W. B. Hurlbut (London: Oxford University Press), 17–28.

Google Scholar

Swensen, C. H. (1972). "The beliefs of dearest," in Love Today, ed. H. A. Otto (New York, NY: Associated Press), 86–101.

Google Scholar

Takahashi, H., Kato, G., Matsuura, M., Mobbs, D., Suhara, T., and Okubo, Y. (2009). When your gain is my pain and your pain is my gain: neural correlates of green-eyed and schadenfreude. Science 323, 937–939. doi: 10.1126/scientific discipline.1165604

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tjeltveit, A. C. (2003). Psychology's love–hate relationship with love: critiques and affirmations. A Paper Presented at the Works of Love: Scientific and Religious Perspectives on Altruism conference (Villanova, PA: Villanova University).

Google Scholar

Tomkins, South. (1984). "Impact theory," in Approaches to Emotion, eds K. R. Scherer and P. Ekman (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).

Google Scholar

Walster, East., Berscheid, E., and Walster, G. West. (1973). New directions in equity enquiry. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 25, 151–176. doi: 10.1037/h0033967

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wyschogrod, E. (2002). "Pythagorean bodies and the body of altruism," in Altruism and Donating Love: Science, Philosophy, and Organized religion in Dialogue, eds S. 1000. Post, L. K. Underwoood, J. P. Schloss, and Westward. B. Hurburt (New York, NY: Oxford University Press), 29–39.

Google Scholar

Yoshimura, S. M. (2004). Emotional and behavioral responses to romantic jealousy expressions. Commun. Rep. 17, 85–101. doi: ten.1080/08934210409389378

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

leachgought.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01940/full

Share this post