. G I
I. . .0. u. I I . .II. . .. I». I ~ . s . I o . .I 1..
w I . . . . . .I . I . . . . v
. .I. I . I u. I t I I I I I . I v 0 .
I . u . I a c... . I. . . I
v . . I o c . . o.. . . u. .. .I. I I I I I . .
v I . . . .. .. I . .. .. I I . . . . . . . .
v . . I . . . . .I u . I . c . . . I . . . . . 4 _ . I
. I .. . . . . . I . . v . I I I I I I. . . I
v . I I. . .. I . _ I . . . I I ~ . I . o I . . .
w I I. o . . 0 I . . .I I . . I .
I I I . . I . I . _ . I n o. .I . I . I . . I
I . o .o I I _ .I. .7 I . I a I I a . I I . I I I
VI . I . I . 0- O. . . v4 . . I . I o I . I. .o
I. I . . I I .... _ I . ._. I. .. I ..o .. . . . . . . . . I .... I.I. .I
. . .. . I . . . I . . . . . . . .
. . I. II. I O I .. fl .9 I. I. I c I . . . I . I, . . v .I
. . c . . .9 . .I . I I o . I I I I ..
o o . .. II. . . . . o. I. v ' . . . o... I . . I o I I . _ . II I s.
. . . o I. .. I . . J. . Q. . . I . I . . I . ..
. I. I 9 . o.I . . II . .. . o a I I. o I. .I‘ . . ...
. . . . . 15. .. . .. o I. I . . . . .. I . I .
I . . . . .. o . . .I I o I I. . . I I _ I I. I . I I
v o .o. II . l . I . a . I I . § .. O I I I I I . _. I _ . .
v u . I I I I. . o . . ¢ I. I . . . I I I . . . I . _I .I . . . I
I I I I I. \ I I . . I _ .I . . y
I I I I . . . . o I u u 0 _ I . I . .I . I

w
I
I
o
I
I
I
.0
I-
I
o
I
1
I
I
,.
I
A.

I
o
I
I
V
O

 

I
.
I
o
I.
o
I
w
I
-I
.
I
‘

N‘
_ . 8
- _I
7 I
‘ I ' I
I
4'1
Q.
‘ I
.

I
I
I
v
I
I
‘A-|I

.Q—.. "‘59-. A. ugo'.'wv~ wwV‘fiVv-w‘vvvva‘vvnv- "-\v
I
I
I
C
I
'0
u
I
I
I
I
.U
,
.

K
I
.
I

 

I o
.I
. . I. . r. _ . v
. . . .I . I . I . .I .. . . _ . I I . I . .. g . .
I O I. I o I . II. I \. OII I . I o. I II I I . _ AI . . , I . . I
. II I. . I I . I 0 . . I o 9.. «I :1 I. . .. I . . . I .I . I I . . . . I
I I n . . . I a I y . I I . . . I o I. I... I II
b . I. . I II . . I I I I. . . . I .. III. . I VI. I . I I . .I I I. . I. _ I I I I .
. . I . . .I . . . I I I I. . o. . o I. ).a? I I _ .I . . I I .
I . . . . I . I x. s I .|. . I I. . . I. . . I .
n . c I . I .I . . .. V. x E . . . I I . I ._ ...I . I I I. I .. I. _ I I . . I .
I . . I . . I. I. I. II . I I . . I .
o , . . . . . I I . .I. . I, . I . .x I I u .
. I . . . I . .. . . I. . . . r . . ., . II. . . . I I .
. I . - I . _ o _ I I . . I. . . I I . I I . . . . . I I I
I A I o I. . o. .I . o I I I I.
I . . I. o I I I _ . .I .I . . . .
. .. . . I F\ .R . . I . I . . . .I. I I v .I I . . a. I . . I I I I I.
a . I . . I . I I I I I I A . .I . I t 0 . Q U I .4 I t
. . . I . I I 6 . . I. . . . . I . . I .. . . . v . I . I .
. I .. I . . ...I . I . . . . I I . I . I
I . I . I . . I o. . I I
. i. I. .I> II - D. II I ..I OI - n I n O.- . l I .. a I . a I II 0 .
I I. I . c I o _ I. I 0... II I. II I .. . . ‘ . I o I . I
. . . I I . . I I I . . I . . I... .. I I I I . I. . .
. . o . . I . I I a a I . .. I . . . . .
n I o I . . . . II. . . . I I. . I I 'II
A I . I \.I I O I I o I -1 I . l t O I
. . ~ I . I . I o I. . I I v . . I I I I ~ .. I . . I
l . . I. . . . IIr.:s I . .o I. . . I . I . I
. . I I . I n I I I. . I I . a .. .o . _ 0t... . . . I I I . I I . I

 

RSI-AR!
5 R)!"
G
R}

_ L
.0. w... .. .ww .. .5-..

I

-

o
I

o

I

~o-oc'.-'.l....

I
I

. w I . . I a I ’ I ‘A
. . . n. I . . I O , , .u I. ‘ .I. I 1.0 Q It. . .. II b D 'I I ICIOVV I
.I.......I.I Ir\.II.I.II ..I..-.-III I. .. . ...I I- IL... ._ .I..I.oI:II_I ...P:I...0I..... ... I 3...... . firm. I «13.; .9I. IHII
I . I. .. . . J. . .II. .I I .I. . Ola. ... .wJJNVI 7.. 0.2.. :u 9:? (L .0 IxIIr o .
L. .. 3-... IE. 2. I... 4 II. .I .III. i... ......II. I. 1.. .. .I. ..I 2. I I. I. . ..
. . . I I

. .\
I"‘ .3. 4-.

O
”in. ”’1. ya II.

 

.. OIII
I but..." I.\I
. .0 I

.. ...I. 1.:

 

fiwfiafifii .3.

 
 

o —-W7I
‘ '9Q~9l‘oo-.~90-~§vno-I.0Iontcr<o -QCC'~¢“O 4 coo-0‘0
I
I
I
I

I

 

w

LIBRARY I
- Michigan State

5 llfl!lflllllllzllfllflvllflllmmulll 1111me L. # , um,

 

ABSTRACT
ROMANTIC LOVE AND MARITAL SATISFACTION:
ADVERSARIES OR ALLIES?
By

Richard Levine

The main theoretical position of this thesis is that romantic
love does not flourish in the context of marriage; that it does not,
by itself, constitute a pillar of strength in marriage; and that
without being balanced by feelings of liking, it may well be antag-
onistic to marital satisfaction.

Specifically, it was hypothesized that romantic love would
be more prevalent and more intense among unmarried, as opposed
to married couples. It was further theorized that married persons
would Show less discrepancy between the extent of their feelings of
romantic love and liking than would unmarried persons; that marital
satisfaction would correlate negatively with the extent of discrepancy
between levels of love and liking; and that marital satisfaction
would correlate positively with the degree of intracouple congruence

on the measures of love and liking.

Richard Levine

A sample of 19 married couples and 19 unmarried couples,
controlled for age and duration of relationships, was drawn from
the community of East Lansing and its environs. Rubin' s (1970)
Romantic Love Scale and Liking Scale were used to operationalize
romantic love and liking. The Locke-Wallace Scale (Locke &
Wallace, 1959) was used to operationalize marital satisfaction.

A t test of significance was employed to test the first hypothesis.
Computer-developed product-moment correlation matrices and
partial correlation matrices were used to test results pertinent
to all of the hypotheses.

The results generally did not confirm the hypotheses.
Rather, analysis of the data suggested that marital satisfaction
is correlated positively with both romantic love and/or liking
independent of the discrepency between the intensity of the two
sentiments. Some support was found for the prediction that there
is a positive correlation between marital satisfaction and intra-
couple congruence on the measure of liking. This was especially
true for men.

In retrospect and in light of the findings, several problems
in this study' s design were pointed out. Some suggestions were
presented regarding future research. The need for developing
more sophisticated instruments to measure romantic love and

liking was considered. Additionally, deficiencies in the sample

Richard Levine

characteristics and modifications in the theoretical orientation

' ' 'u' ‘b‘ .L.’ 8' _'_'.’l.'.’.' . .’ _
,9

of this research were discussed.

ROMANTIC LOVE AND MARITAL SATISFACTION:

ADVERSARIES OR ALLIES?

By

Richard Levine

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1974

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like first to thank Dr. Albert Rabin for his willingness
to exchange ideas, his insightful suggestions, and his encouragement.

Drs. Mary Leichty, John Hurley, and John Hunter all made
suggestions which forced me to think more critically.

In addition, I am pleased to acknowledge the assistance of
Ms. Sandra Stuart, whose help in obtaining and interpreting the

computer-developed data was invaluable.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Statement of Purpose . . . . . . . 1
Defining Romantic Love: A Review of the
Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Freud' s View of Romantic Love: A Resume . . 8
Romantic Love--American Style . . . . . . . . 12
Romantic Love and Marriage . . . . . . . . . l7
Operationalizing Romantic Love . . . . . . . . 18
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
PROBLEMS AND HYPOTHESES . . . . . . . . . . 21
Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
METHOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Description of Instrument . . . . . . . . . . 25
Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Predictions In Terms Of Instruments Employed . 28
STATISTICAL TREATMENT OF DATA . . . . . . . 31
RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Additional Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
The Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Theory and Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

iii

Page
APPENDICES................... 63

Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Appendix B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Appendix C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Appendix D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Appendix E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _71
Appendix F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

BBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O Q 0 O O I O O O O 75

iv

Table

3A

3B

4A

4B

LIST OF TABLES

Sample Variables .

Mean Scores and Standard Deviations on
Romantic Love Scale for Married and
Unmarried Subjects .

Coefficients of Correlation for Discrepancy
Between Love and Liking Scores versus
Marital Satisfaction .

Same as Table 3 but with Liking Partialled
Out

Same as Table 3 but with Liking and Loving
Partialled Out . . . . . .

Coefficients of Correlation for Intracouple
Congruence Measures versus Marital
Satisfaction .

Same as Table 4 but with Male Liking
Partialled Out .

Same as Table 4 but with Female Liking
Partialled Out . .

Correlation Coefficients for Liking Scale
Scores and Loving Scale Scores Versus
Marital Satisfaction .

Correlation Coefficients for Liking Scale
Scores Versus Love Scale Scores .

Pag e

29

34

37

39

4O

41

44

45

47

49

Table Page

7 Means, Standard Deviations, and
Correlations with Total Scale Scores
of Love-Scale and Liking-Scale
Items (Rubin, 1970). . . . . , , , , , ,_ 67

8 Means, Standard Deviations, and
Correlations with Total Scale Scores
of Love-Scale and Liking-Scale
Items (Rubin, 1970). . . . . . . . . . . 69

vi

r...

INTRODUCTION

Statement of Purpo se

Although love, in the popular mind, makes the world go around,
psychologists befuddled by its mysteries have tended to conduct re-
search in greener pastures. Despite the relative dearth of clinical
literature in this area, significant progress has been made in distinj
guishing the romantic variant in human loving,lnaszwe1l as the source S“ -,
from which it may flow. This, of course, does not gainsay the fact

there may well be common elements among different varieties of ‘1
love. " " “ ""
A In Western culture romantic love traditionally is infused with
extraordinary intensity, contingency, and tragedy. Imperfection
and finitude, inescapable aspects of the human condition, are
adversaries to be surmounted rather than realities to be accepted.
Romantic love, in its unalloyed forms, seems to prefer the pain
of unrequitedness to the pleasure of pedestrian togetherness. Seen

in this light, it is an antagonist rather than a contributor to con-

jugal love.

The present paper will attempt to make an incision into
the problem of how marital satisfaction and romantic love are
interrelated. ,Following a review of the relevant literature,
including an eclectic approach to the matter of defining romantic
love, a theoretical position will be articulated and assessed by

means of a correlational study.

Defining Romantic Love: A Review of the Literature

The first task of this study is to move towards a viable
sense of what is meant by romantic love. That psychologists
have thus far been unable to arrive at a comprehensive, consensually-
accepted definition of romantic love is illustrated by the fact that even
the exceedingly down-to-earth therapist, Albert Ellis (1962), has in-
voked the views of men of letters as much as the speculations of his
scientific colleagues in his attempts to capture the meanings of
romance and love. The present effort to impart an understanding,
however imprecise, of romantic love is undertaken in the belief that
poetry and science meet on an equal footing where love' 8 complexities
are concerned.

In recognition of the depth of love' 5 mysteries, Harry Harlow

(1958) observed, "So far as love or affection is concerned,

psychologists have failed in their mission. The little we know about
love does not transcend simple observation, and the little we write
about it has been written better by poets and novelists. " Although
romantic love is, in an ultimate sense, ineffable, distillation of the
efforts of psychologists and men of letters to capture its essence
does yield a measure of consensus regarding its most salient
qualities and characteristics.

Perhaps the most striking general feature of romantic love
is the overpowering intensity with which it is experienced (Dean,
1962; Evans, 1953; Harrington, 1969). Even the most prosaic
aspects of living may assume the dimensions of a Maslow-type peak
experience when they are filtered through the prism of love.
Obstacles seem to stoke the fires of romantic love, and may even be
essential to its very existence (Beigel, 1951; Dean, 1962;
Koenigsberg, 1967; Rougemont, 1956; Slater, 1963). The nature
of the obstacles which have been stressed varies from one theorist
to another, however.

Thus from somewhat different perspectives both Beigel (1951)
and Slater (1963) place considerable importance upon societal factors
that act as impediments to romantic love. Faced with the depersonal-
ization and routinization inherent in modern industrial society, the

imperative to love may be viewed as an assertion of self-expression

and self-importance through one of the few remaining avenues for
gratification of these needs (Beigel, 1951). Also, in creating a
world onto themselves,lovers may be regarded as engaging in a
dyadic withdrawal from a complex social organism which implicitly
or explicitly casts such withdrawal in asocial terms (Slater, 1963).
While there may be some merit in social analyses of the obstacles
to romantic love, it is pertinent to recall that the romantic tradition
antedates industrialism. This suggests a more personalized fram-
ing of the barriers seemingly inherent in romantic love is
necessary.

Ambivalence is frequently a central obstacle to the consum-
mation of romantic love (Dean, 1962; Rubin, 1970). Mutual
ambivalence can be self-perpetuating in that the resolution of one
lover' s doubts may catalyze doubts in the other. Variations
around the theme of mutual ambivalence may comprise by them-
selves requisite obstacles for inflaming passion.

Freud and other observers have focused upon the love
triangle situation as the quintessential difficulty that paradoxically
inspires impassioned love (Dean, 1962; Koenigsberg, 1967). The
romantic lover chooses someone who is already attached, is
driven into a frenzy by jealousy, and seeks to "rescue" the beloved

(Koenigsberg, 1967). The underlying dynamics which help to

explain the compelling power of this archetypal roadblock in the
path of love will be considered later.

In his classic study, Love In The Western World, Denis De
Rougemont (1956) concurs that whatever obstructs love must ensure,
consolidate, and intensify it. He concludes that death is an omni-
present and ultimate obstacle, and that when all is said and done
romantic love places a greater value upon the wish to part than upon
the passion which it generates (Rougemont, 1956).

Prefigured in the delineation of obstacles as vital in the
creation of romantic love is another important feature in its
physiognomy, that of suffering (Beigel, 1951; Ellis, 1962; Evans,
1963; Kremen 8: Kremen, 1971; May, 1969; Rougemont, 1956;
Slater, 1971). ”Death and delight, anguish and joy, anxiety and the
wonder of birth--these are the warf and woof of which the fabric of
human love is woven (May, 1969). " Romantic legends are permeated
by lack of consummation, unrequitedness, partings, and other per-
mutations of tragedy (Slater, 1971). At its most destructive and
extreme part of the spectrum, romantic love seems to contain a
strong masochistic element (Evans, 1953). To recapitulate, inten-
sity, impediments, pleasure and suffering all swirl through the
ethos of romantic love. But having said this is but a beginning in
defining the undefinable.

In a more specific and concrete vein, romantic love is nur-

tured by idealization of the love object and the concomitant belief

in the exclusiveness of the love object' s capacity to satisfy the lover' s
erotic and affectional desires (Beigel, 1951; Ellis, 1962; Evans,
1953; Hitschmann, 1952; Kremen & Kremen, 1971; Reik, 1944;
Rougemont, 1956; Slater, 1971). In Freud' 5 view this unconscious
and irrational overvaluation of the love object over and beyond the
biological drive to sexual union is accompanied by a selective im-
pairment of the lover' s reality-testing powers (Hitschmann, 1952;
Koenigsberg, 1967). Howard and Bennett Kremen (1971) assert four
primary conditions promote idealization intrinsic to romantic love:
1) partial knowledge of the beloved; 2) obstacles to the attainment
of the beloved' s affections; 3) discontent with oneself (Reik, 1944);
4) value attributed to the beloved. It is worthy of note that tradi-
tionally women much more so than men have been sought after and
idealized. Woman has been overvaluated in terms of her "natural"
kindness, intuition, nearness to nature, self-recognition, and
sensitivity (Beigel, 1951).

Apart from idealization of the love object, there is a strong
tendency in romantic love to exalt love itself (Dean, 1962; Ellis,
1962, Koenigsberg, 1967). The Tristan and Iseult myth has been
invoked by De Rougemont in support of his contention that romantic
love is love of love more than love of another person (Koenig sberg,

1967). Augmenting this view is the observation that while romantic

tradition abounds in sexualizing, little sexual intercourse takes
place (Dean, 1962). The romantic lover is antisexual (Ellis, 1962).
The suggestion of sex hangs redolent in the air; its substance is
notably lacking.

No effort to define romantic love would be complete without
allusion to the theme of death which wends its way through unbridled
Eros (Ellis, 1962; Lepp, 1968; Marcuse, 1964; Rougemont, 1956;
Sadler, 1969; Shneidman, 1971; Slater, 1963). "The dominion of
Eros is, from the beginning, also that of Thanatos. Fulfillment is
destruction, not in a moral or sociological but in an ontological
sense. It is beyond good and evil, beyond social morality, and thus
it remains beyond the reaches of the established Reality Principle,
which this Eros refuses and explodes (Marcuse, 1964). "

Romantic love bequeaths the illusionof transcendence. Tawdry
realities are replaced by ideals. The inexorable march of time is
arrested. Sweet paradise replaces bitter earth. But the limits of
human existence, including man' s mortal nature, rise with the cer-
tainty of the tides and sweep away imperiously the most cherished of
love' 5 illusions. "Some romantic lovers find the ecstacy of love so
extraordinary, so unique, that they find it impossible to live in the
shadows of daily life after having known it:(Lepp, 1968). " Other
romantic poets have expressed envy for those insects that die in

copulation (Lepp, 1968).

Although actual suicide in the wake of disappointments in
love are relatively rare in contemporary American culture, Ellis
(1962) regards romantic ideologies and aspirations as major causes
of emotional disturbance. Romantic love' 8 shadow, Thanatos,
may assume many forms including the manifold varieties of psycho-
logical suffering.

Traditional portraits of romantic love include the precept
that the lover would rather die than outlive or live without the loved
one (Shneidman, 1971). The human condition ultimately transforms
passion' s fires into ashes. Much of the pathos, anguish, and
fatality which courses through romantic love may be comprehended
as man thrashing against the immutable walls which constrain his

body and spirit.

Freud' s View of Romantic Love: A Resume

Freud believed that human love, in its diverse forms, has a
biological foundation (Hitschmann, 1952). Feelings of tenderness
and caring, in this view, must be understood as aim-deflected sexual
desires (Evans, 1953;Fenichel, 1945; Sullivan, 1965). Falling in
love always entails some inhibition of immediate and direct sexual
strivings. "Love with an inhibited aim was originally full sensual

love and in men' s consciousness it is so still (Sullivan, 1965). "

From a developmental perspective, aim-inhibited instincts make
their appearance afterrepression of Oedipal wishes around the age
of five (Hitschmann, 1952).

Freud discerned that romantic love is particularly notable for
its unconscious and irrational overvaluation of the love object, trans-
cending the biological drive to sexual union (Freud, 1963; Hitschmann,
1952). In the Freudian frame of reference, the quality and intensity
of romantic love bespeak the tapping of strongly charged, unconscious
contents that flood consciousness and are experienced as special
emotions (Hitschmann, 1952). But what specifically is being tapped
in the unconscious? What is the Freudian key to unlocking the
mystery of romantic sentiments?

Guided by his own observations, Freud delineated four conditions
intrinsic to a syndrome that subsumes the primary features of
romantic love (Freud, 1963). These four conditions included: 1) the
repeated selection of love objects who are already attached; 2) the
evoking of heights of passion by jealousy; 3) obsessive overvaluation
of the love object regardless of reality; 4) the existence of a strong
tendency to feel that one must "rescue" the love object. The peculiar
characteristics of romantic love were, forFreud, footprints leading
to its sources.

Having shaped the pieces of the puzzle with his insight, Freud

assembled them and concluded that romantic love is essentially a

10

quest to recreate the Oedipal situation and its corresponding affects
(Koenigsberg, 1967). "Love at first sight" is fueled not by reality,
but by repressed, incestuous longings (Hitschmann, 1952). Romantic
passion is one mode of expression of an infantile mother-fixation
(Freud, 1963; Hitschmann, 1952; Horney, 1967; Koenigsberg, 1967).
In repeatedly choosing love objects who are already attached,
the lover is unconsciously recreating the archetypal triangle--father,
mother, and child (Hitschmann, 1952; Koenigsberg, 1967). Jealousy
and the passions catalyzed by it grow out of repressed desires for
revenge upon the triumphant parent embodied in the Oedipal Situation.
Overvaluation of the love object, accompanied by selective impair-
ment of reality-testing powers, is attributable to the appearance of
mother (fir st love) by regression in the person of the beloved
(Hitschmann, 1952). The rescue fantasy represents unconsciously
the longing to give mother a child, the child' s wish to be father
himself (Freud, 1963). In romantic love, therefore, the love object
is forbidden and desire increases as the object is approached, but
only to the point where avoidance tendencies become stronger
(Koenig sberg, 1967). Ambivalence, unrequitedness, and absence of
consummation- -basic ingredients of romance-~begin to "make sense"

in the context of unresolved Oedipal strivings.

11

Freud explained the persistence and extent of romantic love
in terms of the ego' s remarkable predilection for reviving infantile
traumas and attempting to master them in the present (Koenigsberg,
1967). Repeated efforts to deny and undo the father' 5 original
victory run throughout Western culture.

While concurring with Freud that romantic love "is funda-
mentally incestuous, " Philip Slater (1971) focuses on the nuclear
family unit as primary in spawning relationships drowned in non-
fulfillment, trespass, and tragedy. Slater' s critique of capitalist
social structure contends that a society founded on more collectivist
bases, including the dissolution of the nuclear family unit, would
yield less exclusivist, more affirmative forms of loving than have
hitherto prevailed (Slater, 1971). Romantic love is unknown in
Navaho society, where there is no single feeding mother in a child' s
upbringing (Hitschmann, 1952). This seems to lend some empirical
support to Slater' s culture-oriented modification of Freud' s
explanation for the durability of romantic love in Western societies.

Though Freud, in contrast to Slater, did not advocate the
elimination of romantic love, he did recognize that rooted as it was
in Oedipal desires, it could never be wholly fulfilling (Freud, 1961).
Romantic love is always a substitute for incestuous yearnings (Evans,
1953). Exceptionally destructive romantic involvements may be

regarded as deriving from an image of the pre-Oedipal mother upon

12

which the male is masochistically fixed. In these instances there
is a deep, unconscious wish to suffer at the hands of the mother
(Evans, 1953).

Kremen and Kremen (1971) accept the essentials of Freud' 5
definition of romantic love, but they reject the Oedipal explanation
for it by citing numerous cases in which people have continued to
overvalue and idealize their loved ones even after repeated satis-
factory sexual relations with them. Of course it can be argued that
the degree to which Oedipal conflicts have been resolved is crucially

important in determining the content of any given love relationship.

Romantic Love--American Style

 

It may be objected that the foregoing description of romantic
love, derived considerably from literary sources, has little or no
relevance to contemporary American society. On the contrary, a
persuasive case can be made to buttress the viewpoint that romantic
love, however debased and popularized, flourishes like a weed in the
American heartland. To be sure, the world of Peyton Place is
several galaxies removed from that of Romeo and Juliet. Apart from
the idiom, however, each of the strands of romantic love previously
delineated is present in the warp and woof of everyday life.

According to Ellis (1962), "if we had adequate statistics on the

place of romanticism in the causation of modern neurosis, we would

13

find literally millions of instances where romantic ideologies have
caused or abetted emotional disturbance. " What are some of the
ways in which the mythology of romantic love makes it self felt in
mainstream America?

Obscured perhaps by the recent upsurge in feminist activity
and concomitant questioning of traditional norms is the fact that
the "silent majority" of Americans continues to subscribe to a
conCeption of marriage that embraces the central tenets of romantic
love. That these tenets breed unrealizable expectations is inferentially
confirmed by the dramatic increase in the American divorce rate--
now approximately 41 percent (Lederer 8: Jackson, 1968). What are
some of these tenets?

Following an exhaustive survey of the mass media, Ellis (1962)
listed the mo st ubiquitous notions about romantic love to which
Americans are subjected day- in and day-out;

1. Romantic love is a feeling that takes you

unaware s, at first sight or a reasonable facsimile thereof,

and quickly cooks your goose.

2. When once you really and truly fall in love,

your emotion is deathless, and not even complete re-

jection by your beloved will serve to make you fall out

of love again.

3. Romantic love is more than welcome at any

age, and oldsters, as well as youngsters, should hasten
to let themselves fall in love.

14

4. Romantic love, when it is reciprocated
and fulfilled, leads to unalloyed, ecstatic happiness.

5. When romantic love is unrequited, or
when one' s lover deserts, it is the most painful,
agonizing feeling possible.

6. Romantic love is a completely irrational,
illogical feeling that makes lovers do the maddest
things.

7. Romantic love is worth making any
sacrifice for, and the greater the sacrifice the
greater, presumably, the love.

8. True love is utterly monogamous, and
once you fall in love--honest and truly--you can never
love another- —even though your beloved is worthless,
unloving, or already married.

9. Romantic love is an all- important emotion,
without which life is dull, pitiful, and meaningless.

10. Love has the power of life and death over
men and women and can make them do, or not do, almost
anything.

11. Love transforms sexuality and makes it truly
good. Sex without love is nasty and worthless.

12. A true lover gives in completely to his
beloved, and becomes entirely subservient to her
wishes and whims.
13. There may be many types of love, but there
is only one true love, which is easily recognizable.
When you really and truly love-- .
Other observers of America' s marital disarray echo Ellis' 3

evaluation of the manner and extent to which long- standing beliefs

about romantic love have become embedded in the consciousness of

15

America' s popular mind (Glenn & Kunnes, 1973; Lederer & Jackson,
1968; O'Neill & O'Neill, 1972; Slater, 1971). The ever-glamorous,
ever-youthful, ever-smiling, wholly entranced, sweet- smelling
couples who peOple TV commercials (to give but one example) have
imprinted through repeated imagery a wholly unrealistic, grotesque
vision of what romance, love, and relatedness are all about. The
popularization of romantic mythology in America has taken place
within the matrix of commercialism to a significant degree. The
wreckage of broken marriages that dot the American landscape
confirms there is a tragic gap between what millions of people have
come to believe a love relationship is supposed to provide and what,
in fact, it is capable of providing.

Nor is the Freudian model of romantic love far removed from
American realities. The repeated selection of love objects who are
already attached (in the form of adulterous relationships) appears to
be more widespread in the United States today than in past decades
(Friedan, 1963). The promise of attaining heretofore unknown heights
of ecstacy through pursuit of the forbidden is a common theme in the
deluge of sexual material that has flooded the American marketplace.

The stunning box office success of the film, Last Tango in Paris,

 

lends additional support to the contention that Freud' s description

of romantic love and theory regarding its origins still strike a

16

responsive chord in present-day America. In this film, which
provided conversational grist for the mills of cocktail parties
throughout the land, the heroine becomes enmeshed in a compelling
affair with a man old enough to be her father. Overcome by passion,
there are no limits to what she will do for her middle-aged, dis-
illusioned lover. He, in turn, comes to shed his armoring of
cynicism and world-weariness, and tries to turn their doomed
romance into a marriage. The film ends with the heroine shooting
her now unwanted suitor. He dies wearing an army cap that belonged

to the heroine' s father. The Oedipal theme is unmistakable; . the

 

content of the impassioned love affair contains all of the aspects of
romantic love culled from literary tradition.

In short, romantic love is a potent force in the contemporary
American consciousness. Its impact is not reserved, as in the
annals of literature, to the exceptional (almost invariably upper-class)
few. In the United States romantic love is a mass phenomenon.
Most importantly, popularized notions of romantic love have been
incorporated into common views of what marriage should be like.
This has happened despite the fact that romance and conjugal
commitment clash at many levels in the views of numerous writers

and p sy chologi st 8.

17

Romantic Love and Marriage

 

Coming to one of the foci of this study, there is lively
speculation in the psychological literature about the relationship
of romantic love and conjugal love. Reik (1944), for example,
contended that romantic love, though more intense, is not quali-
tatively different from the affectional ties requisite to sustaining
marriage. Though he acknowledged overvaluation of the love object
and transiency as intrinsic to romantic love, Reik believed romance
could lead to marriage as an alternative to burning itself out.
Marital love, from his vantage point, entails a more realistic
appreciation of the love object and greater potentiality to endure
(Reik, 1944). To summarize, romantic love may herald and trans-
mutate into a more stable and reality-bound form of devotion
institutionalized in marriage.

Other theorists (Dean, 1962;Rougemont, 1956) have main-
tained that romantic love is different in kind from marital love,
and that romantic love' 5 tenets are actually opposed to the marriages
that they are supposed to spark in our culture (Ellis, 1962). This
theoretical camp depicts romantic love as a futile quest to transcend
the limits of human existence (Rougemont, 1956); a feeling rooted in
mutual insecurity and glorification of feeling for its own sake (Dean,
1962); and a sentiment infused with unhappiness and tragedy

(Rougemont, 1956; Slater, 1971).

18

Conjugal love, on the other hand, is portrayed as expressive
of the need to create a sense of security through an assumption of
mutual responsibility (Dean, 1962). As such, it is deeper, firmer,
steadier, more reciprocal, and more satisfying than its romantic
counterpart (Beigel, 1951; Rougemont, 1956). Whether romantic
love differs in degree or in kind from conjugal love, it seems
clear that unalloyed passion is distinguishable from more domes-
ticated sentiments.

But more than distinguishable, romantic love in its extreme
variants nay well be conjugal love' 5 antagonist. Unconscious
Oedipal strivings, unrequitedness, obstacles, idealization of the
love object, and refusal to acquiesce to human limitations, includ-
ing change, all seem to fly in the face of those qualities and attri-
butes that enter into a sustained and reasonably successful 'marital
liaison between two peOple. The relationship between romantic
love and conjugal love is still unclear and calls for additional

exploration.

Qperationaliz ing Romantic Love

Notwithstanding the complexity of the endeavor, Rubin (1970)
has attempted to develop a social-psychological construct of

romantic love which incorporates eclectically the perspectives of

19

Freud, De Rougemont, Slater, and others. His romantic love
scale accepts that there may well be common elements among
different kinds of love (filial, marital, religious) that have been
differentiated.

The specific items that Rubin incorporated into his love scale
(see Appendix A) fall under broader definitional headings derived
from diverse thinkers that touch upon many of the concepts treated
in this paper. The headings include: physical attraction; idealization;
a predisposition to help; the desire to share emotions and experiences;
feelings of exclusiveness and absorption; felt affiliative and dependent
needs; the holding of ambivalent feelings; and the relative unim-
portance of universalistic norms in romantic love relationships
(Rubin, 1970).

At the same time and as a means of validation of his romantic
love scale, Rubin (1970) developed a parallel liking scale (see
Appendix B) which is a measure of platonic rather than romantic
feelings. Rubin (1970) acknowledges that his liking scale conforms
closely to earlier measures of "attraction" employed by Bryne and
Lindzey in 1968. Rubin' s (1970) liking scale includes components
of favorable evaluation and respect for the target person, as well
as the perception that the target is similar to oneself.

Rubin' 3 work constitutes an important stride in operation-

alizing and distinguishing between romantic love and liking. The

20

present study will enlist Rubin' s research instruments in order
to probe further areas which have only begun to be the objects of

clinical investigation.

Summary

As the preceding review suggests, romantic love is an
elusive and irreducible aspect of human life. Though it is a vital
and profound force in millions of peOple' s lives, research devoted
to plumbing love' 3 mysteries has been limited by the vastness of its
complexities. Nonetheless, subjective speculation from the domains
of literature and psychology has succeeded in communicating some-
thing of the flavor of romantic feelings. Zick Rubin' s (1970)
pioneering work has made available to reSearchers useful tools,
however primitive, with which to study scientifically and extend man' 5
understanding of love.

Even in the absence of controlled experimentation, a lively
controversy has developed concerning the relationships among
romantic love, liking, and conjugal relationships. Is romantic love,
as Reik (1944) believed, transmutable into marital commitment? Or
is romantic love an irreconcilable adversary of conjugal stability, as
De Rougemont (1956) declaimed? These are the larger questions
arching over the specific hypotheses which will be considered in this

study.

PROBLEMS AND HYPOTHESES

Problems

The primary problem in conducting an inquiry into the inter-
relationships among romantic love, liking, and marital satisfaction
is, as previously explained, to obtain valid means of operationalizing
these complex phenomena. Once the means for scientific investi-
gation are available, the challenge becomes one of analyzing the
data rendered accessible by the tools of research in such a way as to
relate meaningfully the focal factors in this study.

From the preceding review it is apparent that no consensus
exists within the scientific community regarding the relative roles
of romantic love and liking in determining the quality of dyadic
heterosexual relationships either within or outside of the institution
of marriage. The dearth of empirical data relating to these issues
is inversely proportional to the extent they affect most people in their
daily lives. Given the relevance of the quest, relatively primitive
instruments deserve to be used pending the development of more
sophisticated means of exploration. The researcher should dare to

investigate where angels fear to tread.

21

22

Zick Rubin (1970) has made a beginning in subjecting
romantic love to the appraising eye of empirical scrutiny. His
romantic love and liking scales have demonstrated a high internal
consistency for both men and women. The moderate correlation
that Rubin (1970) obtained between his romantic love and liking
scales lends support to his contention that the instruments he
developed do, in fact, measure two qualitatively different constel-
lations of feeling. The means to measure marital satisfaction are
less arcane than in the case of romantic love. For the purposes of
this study, the Locke—Wallace Scale (Locke & Wallace, 1959), an
instrument which has been widely used, will be employed (see
Appendix C).

With scales in hand, it remains to pose salient questions
about romantic love, liking, and marital satisfaction in the form
of testable hypotheses. Beyond that, careful and exhaustive
analysis of the correlational data adduced will be the mortar that
holds together qualified conclusions concerning the complicated

matters under study.

Hypothe se 5

 

It has been suggested that romantic love and liking are two

different (if somewhat overlapping) constellations of feeling that

23

are integral aspects of heterosexual love relationships, whether
within or outside of the institution of marriage. Further, the
question has been raised regarding the constructive or destructive
role of romantic love upon conjugal relationships.

This thesis will attempt to clarify the relative roles of
romantic love and liking among unmarried couples (who are
romantically involved and who have been going steady for a
minimum of three and a maximum of eighteen months) and married
couples (who have been wedded a minimum of three and a maximum
of seven years). All subjects will be between 22 and 30 years of
age. In the case of the married group, marital satisfaction will be
examined as a function of the balance between romantic love and
liking. From the previous review and discussion of pertinent
theoretical issues, the following hypotheses were formulated:

1. Married sulfiects score lower on the romantic love scale than do
unmarried subjects.

It is argued that many aspects of romantic love are
incompatible with the reality-boundedness and mutual accessibility
characteristic of most marital situations. Conversely, the
dynamics which energize romantic love are more likely to exist
outside of the institution of marriage. Romantic love may spark
a marriage, but marriage does not nurture romantic love.

2. Married subfigts show less discrepangy between their romantic

love scale scores and liking scale scores than do unmarried subjects.

It is more likely that subjects who have undertaken the
commitment to marriage have affiliative feelings drawn from the

24

domains of romantic love and liking in closer balance than is the
case with their unmarried counterparts. Romantic love is dis-
tinguishable from liking and is more likely to Show relative pre-
dominance in heterosexual love relationships carried on out side
of the framework of marriage.

3. Marital satisfaction correlates negatively with the extent of

discrepancy between scores on the romantic love scale and liking

 

scale.

A balance between feelings of romantic love and liking
is conducive to marital satisfaction. Impassioned romantic love
is ephemeral by definition. As such, when it is devoid of the
steadier feelings of liking, it is less likely to yield marital satis-
faction than in the case of a blending of these two sentiments. Like-
wise, intense liking unwarmed by the fires of romantic love is less
likely to yield marital satisfaction than such a blending. The more
equally weighted the blend, the more intense marital satisfaction
will be.

4. Marital satisfaction correlates positivegy with intracougle
congruence on romantic love scale scores and liking scale scores.

In general, a marriage is likely to be more successful
if the intensity of each partner' 3 sentiments is in balance with
that of his (or her) mate' 5 feelings. The closer the scores of a
husband and wife on both the romantic love scale and liking scale,
the more likely they are to be satisfied with their conjugal union.

METHOD

Description of Instrument

 

Rubin' 5 Romantic Love Scale and Liking’JScale

Zick Rubin' s romantic love scale (Rubin, 1970) adheres to
the following considerations: it is grounded in existing theoretical
and popular conceptions of love; responses to its items must be
highly intercorrelated if it is, in fact, tapping a single underlying
attitude; its discriminant validity is established by a parallel and
internally consistent scale of liking with which it correlates only
moderately (see Appendices A & B).

The items which Rubin (1970) ultimately included in his
romantic love scale were eclectically drawn from the speculations
of Freud, De Rougemont, Fromm, Slater, and other prominent
thinkers. These items refer to physical attraction, idealizaton, a
predisposition to help, the desire to share emotions and experiences,
feelings of exclusiveness and absorption, felt affiliative and de-
pendent needs, the holding of ambivalent feelings, and the relative
unimportance of universalistic norms in the relationship (Rubin,

1970).

25

26

The liking scale items were suggested by existing theoretical
and empirical literature on interpersonal attraction and include
references to the desire to affiliate with the target in various
settings, evaluation of the target on several dimensions, the salience
of norms of responsibility and equity, feelings of respect and trust,
and the perception the target is similar to oneself (Rubin, 1970).

After intensive screening of 70 items and factor analyses
of responses to them, Rubin (1970, 1973) administered the fruits
of his labor (the thirteen item romantic love and liking scales) to
158 dating (but non-engaged) couples at the University of Michigan.
Appendices C and D present the mean scores and standard deviations
for the items, together with the correlations between individual items

and total scale scores (Rubin, 1970).

Locke-Wallace Scale

 

The Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Scale, developed in
1959 and widely used since then, was utilized in the present study
as a means of measuring marital satisfaction. This instrument is
designed to operationalize the degree of accommodation of a wife
and a husband to each other at a given time (Locke & Wallace, 1959).
Specific items on the Locke-Wallace Scale (see Appendix C) were
culled from several more extensive instruments for measuring

marital satisfaction (Locke & Wallace, 1959). Through careful

27

selection procedures, Locke and Wallace have constructed a short
test of marital adjustment whose reliability and validity equals the
more elaborate scales from which it was drawn (Locke 8: Wallace,

1959).

Su_bie_C£§

The subjects used in this study were drawn from the student
population of Michigan State University and the general populace of
East Lansing, Michigan and its environs. The subject sample
included nineteen married couples who have been wedded from three
to seven years, and nineteen unmarried couples who have been
going steady from three to eighteen months. All subjects were
between 22 and 30 years of age. They were obtained through the

use of advertising in the State News, a student newspaper, and the

 

posting of flyers in disparate places all over town. Each couple

received $3 for participating in the study.

Biggraghical Information

In addition to obtaining scores on Rubin' s romantic love and
liking scales and, in the case of married subjects, a marital
satisfaction rating on the Locke-Wallace scale, the following

additional information about each subject was secured,

28

sex
age

educational level

duration of marriage or relationship
number of children

Subject variables are shown in Table 1.

Procedure

 

The subjects (SS) were contacted by telephone, and an
appointment time was arranged when both husband and wife or
unmarried partners would be present. At the prearranged time,
the examiner (E) called at the Ss' apartment or some other
mutually convenient spot. 88 were informed that the experiment
concerned the study of heterosexual, love relationships. Ss were
given instructions about the rating procedure. The Ss sat in
different areas of the room, worked separately, were told they
could not compare responses when finished, and did not observe

or confer with each other about the answers to the test items.

Predictions in Terms of Instruments Employed

To test the hypotheses previously outlined, the following
specific predictions were conceptualized in terms of the scores
obtained on Rubin' s (1970) Romantic Love Scale and Liking Scale,

as well as the Locke-Wallace Scale (Locke 8: Wallace, 1959) in

29

 

NH

ma

wa

«Gog—um
mumspmuu magma—955.

pmumhopcb fifimnofiab

305m 35
":6 cosmosem

 

smog

omdmm
”acacia mo 398:2

 

Nd.“
mHum

H .oH
mHum

mo. .4»
film

mm
PI

.v
m

582

omcmm
"A2828
3:98:33“ no Amhmomc
mmwiumz mo :03?“an

 

m.NN
mmumm

H .mm
mmumm

m.mm
mmumm

m .

mm

omnvm“

smog

owcwm
Hom<

 

2: u zv 580?

 

as u 7: G32

 

3H u Zv Gonna? 3H

 

E :32

 

 

vozndEGD

“03.332

 

383.53?

 

 

3:.

z 305 833.”; 838mm -- a mama.

 

30

the case of married 58. Each corresponds with the afore-
mentioned hypothesis with the same number.

The variable of romantic love (more specifically its
intensity) is operationally defined as the score obtained on Rubin' s
(1970) Romantic Love Scale. The variable of liking is operationally
defined as the score obtained on Rubin' s (1970) Liking Scale. The
variable of marital satisfaction is operationally defined by the score

obtained on the Locke-Wallace Scale (Locke 8: Wallace, 1959).

1. Married subjects score lower on the romantic love scale than

do unmarried subjects.

2. Married subjects show less discrepancy between their
romantic love scale scores and liking scale scores than do

unmarried subjects.

3. Marital satisfaction correlates negatively with the extent of
discrepancy between scores on the romantic love scale and liking

scale.

4. Marital satisfaction correlates positively with intracouple

congruence on romantic love scale scores and liking scale scores.

STATISTICAL TREATMENT OF DATA

In the case of Hypothesis 1, the means and standard devi-
ations of Romantic Love Scale scores obtained from married and
unmarried subjects were computed. Fisher' 5 method of tests of
significance for small, uncorrelated samples was then employed.

Additionally, Hypotheses 1 through 4 were tested by means
of a correlational analysis which consisted of intercorrelation
matrices and partial correlations. This was carried out‘on the
Control Data Corporation 6500 Computer using PACKAGE (Hunter
8: Cohen, 1971) and an updated version, FACTRB (Hunter, 1974).
Package consists of a system of Fortran routines designed to
compute means, standard deviations, and correlations among a
set of variables, plus a variety of other correlational analyses.

For Hypotheses 1 through 4, product moment (r) correlations
were computed between each pair of variables to be compared.
Each r was tested for significance by referring to Table 1,
Critical Values of the Correlation Coefficient (Glass 8: Stanley,
1970). All hypotheses were stated in a one-directional manner,
hence all tests were one—tailed.

Correlation matrices with the variable of liking partialled

out were computed in order to better determine whether the

31

32

variable of discrepancy between Romantic Love Scale scores and
Liking Scale scores (Hypotheses 2 and 3) was correlated with
marital satisfaction in the predicted direction in a manner not
attributable to a correlation between liking and marital satisfaction
alone.

Liking was also partialled out of correlation matrices
pertinent to Hypothesis 4 in order to better determine whether
the variables of intracouple congruence on Romantic Love Scale
scores and Liking Scale scores were correlated in the predicted
direction with marital satisfaction in a manner not attributable to

a correlation between liking and marital satisfaction alone.

RESULTS

Hypothesis 1. Married subjects score lower on the romantic

 

love scale than do unmarried subjects.

 

Hypothesis 1 was tested by using Fisher's method of tests
of significance for small, uncorrelated samples. The t test pro-
duced a value of t = . 28. t was not significant though married
subjects did have a slightly lower mean score on the Romantic Love
Scale than did unmarried subjects (see Table 2). Thus Hypothesis
1 was not confirmed.

Using an intercorrelation matrix, the equivalent to a 2-way
ANOVA between Sex and Marital Status with the dependent variable,
Romantic Love Score, was carried out. The correlation for Sex
with Romantic Love Score was - . 03. This is equivalent to an F
of . 07 for the main effect, Sex, in the 2-way ANOVA. The
correlation for Marital Status with Romantic Love Score was
- . 03. This is equivalent to an F of . 07 for main effect of Marital
Status. In neither instance was significance obtained.

The correlation of the product of the Bernoulli variables,

Sex and Marital Status, with Romantic Love Scores was - . 16.
This is equivalent to an F of 1. 895 for the interaction of Sex with

Marital Status, and was also insignificant.

34

TABLE 2 -- Mean Scores and Standard
Deviations on Romantic Love Scale for
Married and Unmarried Ss

 

 

Unmarried Ss Married SB
(N = 38) (N = 38)

 

Mean S. D. .Mean S. D.

 

 

 

89.605 11.018 88.842]12.567

 

 

 

 

 

35

To summarize, Hypothesis 1 was disconfirmed. No
significant differences were discernible between the Romantic
Love Scale scores of married, as opposed to unmarried subjects.
Consideration of the additional variable, Sex, also failed to pro-

duce any significant results.

Hypothesis 2. Married subjects show less discrepanclbetween

 

their romantic love scale scores and liking scale scores than do

 

unmarried subjects.

 

Hypothesis 2 was tested by a product-moment correlation
test between Marital Status and the Absolute Difference Between
Romantic Love Scale Scores and Liking Scale Scores (i. e. , the
Discrepancy). The correlation obtained of r- = . 01 was insigni-
ficant. No relationship was found between the magnitude of dis-
crepancy between Romantic Love and Liking Scale Scores and

Marital Status. The hypothesis was thus not confirmed.

Hypothesis 3. Marital satisfaction correlates negatively with the
extent of discrepancy between scores on the romantic love scale

and liking scale.

 

Hypothesis 3 was tested by a product-moment correlation
test between Marital Satisfaction and the Absolute Difference

Between the Romantic Love Scale Score and Liking Scale Score

36

for all married subjects (see Table '3). The data was also
appraised in a second manner which involved obtaining a cor-
relation between Marital Satisfaction and the Ratio‘ of the Absolute
Difference Between the Love Scale Score and Liking Scale Score

Over the Total Love and Liking Score compiled by each married

subject (see Table 3).

|Romantic Love Score - Liking Score|
’ |Romantic Love Score + Liking Scog'

 

The ratio permitted
taking into account the absolute levels of love and liking scores,
as well as the discrepancy between these two scores for each
married subject.

For Absolute Difference Between Love Scale Score and
Liking Scale Score versus Marital Satisfaction, a correlation of
r = - . 20 was obtained. This indicated a trend in the direction

predicted by the hypothesis, though it fell short of being significant

at the . 05 level of confidence (0C = . 275).

Romantic Love Score - Liking Score]
Romantic Love Score + Liking Scora ’

 

For the ratio,
versus Marital Satisfaction, a correlation of - . 28 was obtained.
This result was in the direction predicted by the hypothesis, and
was significant at the . 05 level of confidence. Thus before partial-
ling out liking and loving, Hypothesis 3 tended markedly to be

confirmed by the data.

37

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 3 -- Coefficients of Correlation for Discrepancy Between
Love and Liking Scores versus Marital Satisfaction
(N = 38)
Hypothesis Variables r
3 Love Score - Like Score vs. Marital Satis. . 20
(absolute difference)
3 Love score ' Like score vs. Marital Satis. .28

 

 

Love Score + Like Score

 

 

(In this table the correlation must be . 275 or higher to be

significant at the . 05 level)

 

38

However, since the ratio was correlated with the Love
and Liking Scales, the observed r could be just an indirect
reflection of that correlation. Partial r' s were calculated to
test for this, and the partial r' s were virtually 0. Thus the
observed r' s of - , 20 and - . 28 were artifacts of the correlation
between the ratio and the simple scales themselves (see Tables
3A and 3B). The apparent support for Hypothesis 3 was thus

wiped out.

Hypothesis 4. Marital satisfaction correlates positively with
intracouple congguence on romantic love scale scores and liking

scale scores.

 

Hypothesis 4 was tested by a product-moment correlation
test between Marital Satisfaction and Intracouple Congruence.
Intracouple Congruence was looked at in five different ways (see
Table 4). These approaches included: Absolute Difference
Between the Liking Scale Scores of Husbands and Wives; Absolute
Differences Between the Love Scale Scores of Husbands and Wives;
Absolute Differences Between Liking Scale Scores of Spouses and
Absolute Differences Between Love Scale Scores of Spouses
Totalled Together; the Ratio of Absolute Differences Between
Spouses on the Liking Scale Over Their Total Scores on the Liking
Scale; and the ratio of Absolute Differences Between Spouses on the

Love Scale Over Their Total Scores on the Love Scale. Note that

39

TABLE 3A -- Same as Table 3 but with Liking Partialled Out

 

 

 

 

 

(N = 38)
Hypothesis Variables r
3 Love Score - Like Score vs. Marital Satis. - . 08
(absolute difference)
3 Love Score - lee Scorj vs. Marital Satis. - . 12

 

 

Love Score + Like Scor

 

 

 

(In this table the correlation must be . 275 or higher to be
significant at the . 05 level)

-2 'ni’i .‘ “0...: n

 

40

TABLE 3B -- Same as Table 3 but with Liking and Loving Partialled

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Love Score + Like Score

 

Out
(N . 38)
Hypothesis Variables r
3 Love Score - Like Score vs. Marital Satis. . 07
(absolute difference)
3 Love Score - lee Score vs. Marital Satis. . 05

 

 

(In this table the correlation must be . 275 or higher to be

significant at the . 05 level)

41

:96; mo . on“ 3 Emoahsmfim on on. Roam“: no mam . on “man aofiflmnnoo on: 383 was: a:

 

mofiaaou nob
38m 954 so onoom H.308

 

 

 

 

 

 

mH . u «l . n mamom 964 9: co momsomm .m> cofiommmflmm HEENE
cmmkumm moocohomflm musfiomnmw .
mmfiaaou Mom
ofimom wfifiq Go onoom 1308
S. - we. - 28m mmxfi 2: co 880% .3 8583mm 382
Goosfiom moocmuowum ougomnlw
woman—0H. madam
mm . . mm ... .. 954 can ofimom mcgfiq on”. no mo>§> bum mpgnmam coosfiom
moocmnommn 330mg» 9: mo 85m 93 .m> :oBommmSmm H3232
ma . .. 3 . u mfimom 951— on: no moi? paw mpcmnmnm
amokumm moocohomflfl ougomndw o5 .m> cofiomHmEmm H3232
mm. - mm. - 28m mfixfi 2: 8 833 new 888%

:ooBHom moocmuomflm 33934 2: .m> noiommmflmm “3:232

 

.
AGH " 7.5 mmfiwamm

2.: u 75 93.32

 

 

Ab mucmfioflmoou ”83.39200

 

 

 

 

coflommmflwm

H3232 mama: moSmon mocmsumcoo ofimzoomfifi 90m coflwaoaaou mo macowoflmooo :1 v @153qu

 

42

intracouple congruence is being handled statistically in terms of
absolute differences between marriage partners on the Liking

and Love Scales (i. e. , theggeater those differences, the less the
intracouple corgruence).

Without partialling, all of the correlation coefficients ob-
tained (see Table 4) were in the direction predicted by the
hypothesis--as intracouple congruence declined (i. e. , intracouple
differences increased), marital satisfaction likewise decreased.
This apparent trend in support of Hypothesis 4 did not, however,
hold up after partialling,

Specifically, with respect to the original matrix, the data
were broken down in such a way as to permit separate appraisal
of male and female (husband and wife) marital satisfaction as
correlated with intracouple congruence. For husbands, a cor-
relation coefficient of - . 39 was obtained when Marital Satisfaction
was correlated with the Absolute Difference Between Them and

Their Wives on the Liking Scale. When placed in the form of a

 

ratio, this r climbed to - . 42 (0C = . 389 at the . 05 level of confi-
dence). For both husbands and wives, intracouple congruence on
the Liking Scale correlated more strongly with marital satisfaction

than did intracouple congruence on the Love Scale (see Table 4).

43

When male liking was partialled out (in effect, held
constant) of the original matrix (see Table 4A), the trend in
support of Hypothesis 4 was virtually eliminated. For males,

however, marital satisfaction and intracouple congruence on

 

the Liking Scale continued to be correlated in the direction pre-
dicted at the . 10 level of confidence (see Table 4A). For females,
there continued to be a slight trend between marital satisfaction
and intracouple congruence on the Liking Scale after male liking
was partialled out.

When female liking was partialled out (in effect, held
constant) of the original matrix (see Table 4B), the apparent
trend in support of Hypothesis 4 disappeared. Nonetheless, for
males, an anomalous trend persisted in support of the predicted
correlation between marital satisfaction and intracouple congruence

on the Likgg Scale (see Table 4B).

 

To summarize, the data pertinent to Hypothesis 4 taken as a
whole suggest that contrary to what was predicted, marital satis-
faction is independent of intracouple congruence on measures of
love and liking. The only suggestion that this is not the case came
from one correlation significant at the . 10 level between intra-

couple liking congruence and marital satisfaction for males.

 

Standing alone, this anomaly is of dubious importance. Nonetheless

it is worthy of further investigation.

44

29%: mo . of 3 unwoflmcmfim on on. hoe—mg no mam . on “mac: coflwfimunoo 9.: .393 mu: «5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

moan—OD hob
3.8m ESQ Go muoom 1308
mo . . mo . . 395 964 m5 :0 momsomm .m> coEowmmEmm 13sz
amalgam moocouowfln— 330mb<
moan—00 pom
oflmom mfiufid no onoom 130R.
om . : ow . . 2.8m maxi on: do momsonwm .m> cowuowmmfimm H3332
GooBuom moononomflm masfiomndw
Hos—Each. pmfiwuok mawom
om . - mm . - waged can .3QO wfiufiq mg no mo>§> paw mpawnmnm coosfiom
mmocouowmm 330mg» my: mo flaw of .m> comuommmfimm 33.82
3 . . Ho . + 3.8m $54 .2: Go mm>§> paw mpcmnmsm
noosfiom moocouowhn— ousaomefi o5 .m> :ofiommmflmm H3732
om. - mm. - 38m mfixfi 2: so 8:3 new 888%
nookuom moocmpmmflm $3093: 93 .m> non—0833mm 33.32
A3 u E moamaom 8H u 75 monE mogmzwkw

 

 

 

A5 mucofioflmoou :oEmHohhoU

 

 

 

So BASES mafia £32 £3 :5 v 2an mm 88mm -- <4 mqm<e

 

45

29,3 no . o5 u: Emoflwdwflm on o» Roam: .Ho mum . on “ma—E dogmaonnoo 9: :33 :3: n3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A5 munofloflmmou GoflmehuoU

 

 

moaaou mom
ofimom 964 no ouoom H309
Ho . . mo . + 38m 35A on: no momsomw .m> :ofiommmflmm 132:2
nookaom moocoaomflm ougomnxw
mofiasou nob
onom wfifid :0 939.0. .2308
no . . om . . ofimomwfifid 2.: co momsodm .m> :ofiommmflmm H3332
domain—om moocouommm ounfiomfiw
aofiomoB voflmuoh oawom
no . u 3 . .. 0.54 pa: 38m mfiufid on: Go moi? Us: mommnmam cooks—om
moocoaomflfl muaaomndw :5 mo 55w :5 .m> coEommmEmm awn—ENE
vo . I mo . + ofimom o>od :5 :o no.3? Us: mbnmnmsm
:mosfiom moocouomflm ougomfiw on» .m> cofiommmflwm H3332
we. - om. - 28m 8:3 2: no 833 23 8:38:
Goosfiom moocohomfin 330.042 o5 .m> :oEommmSmm H3232
8H u 7.0 mofimfiom :3 u 75 :33: moEmEm>

 

 

So 8:32“: .833 3:88: :3 :5 a 2:3. 3 88am. -- ma mqm<e

 

46

Additional Results

 

Some additional results which fall outside of the confines
of the original hypotheses are worth noting briefly. Marital
satisfaction was correlated positively with higher scores on
both the Romantic Love Scale and Liking Scale for all married
subjects to the . 01 level of confidence (see Table 5). Males
tended to score lower on the marital satisfaction measure than
did their wives, compiling a mean score of 98. 842 on the Locke-
Wallace Scale, as opposed to their wive' s 108. 000. The cor-
relation of . 30 between husband' 3 and wive' s marital satisfaction
scores was surprisingly low. At least with reference to the
sample used in this study it seems possible for one marital
partner to be satisfied while their spouse is dissatisfied, a
remarkably personalized phenomenon considering the integral
nature of marriage. In general the mean score compiled by the
married subjects in this study on the marital satisfaction scale
(103. 421) was lower than comparable samples who have been
tested in the past (discussion with Dr. John Hurley, Michigan
State University). The origins of this anomaly are obscure.

There was a positive trend between marital satisfaction and

having more children. This trend was more pronounced for wives

47

TABLE 5 -- Correlation Coefficients for Liking Scale Scores and
Loving Scale Scores Versus Marital Satisfaction
(All Married Subjects N = 38)

 

 

 

 

 

Variables Correlation Coefficients
Liking vs. Marital Satisfaction . 46
Love vs. Marital Satisfaction . 50

 

 

(In this table the correlation must be . 418 or higher to be
significant at the . 01 level, two-tailed)

 

48

than for husbands, and it should be kept in mind that no couple in
the sample had more than two children. This trend was contrary to
those of Hurley and Polonien (1967) who found marital satisfaction to
be negatively correlated with child density (the number of living
children divided by number of years married).

Finally, there was a correlation between Love Scale scores and
Liking Scale scores among married subjects at the . 01 level of signi-
ficance (see Table 6). For unmarried subjects this correlation dropped
below the . 10 level of significance. The data thus tend to suggest that
there is a much stronger positive relationship between feelings of love
and of liking for married people in comparison to their unmarried

counterparts.

49

TABLE 6 -- Correlation Coefficients for Liking Scale Scores

Versus Love Scale Scores

 

 

 

 

Variables Married Ss Unmarried Ss
(N = 38) (N = 38)
Liking VS. Love . 42 . 27

 

 

 

(In this table the correlation must be . 275 or higher to be
significant at the . 10 level, two-tailed; the correlation must be
. 418 or higher to be significant at the . 01 level, two-tailed)

 

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Overall support of the predictions did not take place. The
following several paragraphs explore the implications of the results
taken as a whole. A critical assessment of some of the problems

relating to design and sample will be included in the chapter.

The Findings

 

Hypothesis 1, that married subjects score lower on the
romantic love measure than do unmarried subjects, was not sub-
stantiated by this research. No significant differences emerged
between married and unmarried subjects with respect to Romantic
Love Scale scores. This result tends to contradict those theorists
(see Review of the Literature above) who have cast romantic love
and marriage in the roles of unremitting adversaries. It appears
possible that romantic love can be sustained within the institution
of marriage at a level comparable to that which prevails during
courtship.

On the other hand, it is possible that the scales which were
used to measure romantic love and liking failed to discriminate

adequately between these two sentiments which do seem to overlap

50

51

and which are difficult to define and to operationalize with precision.
Even a cursory look at the specific items that Rubin (1970) in-

cluded in his Romantic Love and Liking Scales (see Appendices A 8:
B) reveals considerable overlap of love and liking on both scales.
Though there is in the real world no pure love "uncontaminated" by
liking, just as there is no pure liking "uncontaminated" by love,
researchers must endeavor to refine their instruments in order to
capture the essential qualities of each blend of sentiments. The work
in this area has only just begun.

Also, with reference to the Romantic Love Scale, its items do
not adequately tap many of the primary irrational beliefs that feed
into romantic love (see Review of the Literature above).

It is possible, as far as Hypothesis 1 is concerned, that
marriages of longer duration (fifteen to thirty years) would produce
the lower Romantic Love Scale scores that were predicted. The
spark of romantic love may lead to marriage (Rubin, 1973); it also
may burn much longer than was anticipated in this study.

Finally, it is worth considering whether the parity that emerged
between the Love Scale scores of married and unmarried subjects
indicates there is less romanticizing among young adults in America
today than in the past. Freud viewed romantic love as being fueled

by aim-deflected sexuality (see Review of the Literature above). The

52

relaxation of sexual constraints which has marked the past decade
may be depleting the sources of aim—deflected sexuality by social
sanctioning of direct sexual expression. In this context, it would be
interesting to compare unmarried couples who engage in premarital
sexual relations with those who desist to see whether the latter
score higher on measures of romantic love.

Hypothesis 2, that married subjects would show less dis-
crepancy between their Romantic Love and Liking Scale scores than
unmarried subjects, also was not confirmed. There seems to be
no basis for presuming that the decision to marry betokens more of
a balance between the sentiments of romantic love and liking than
there would be in its absence. Nor does the data support the View
that the state of marriage promotes greater equilibrium between
love and liking. The motivations for getting married and staying
married would appear to reside elsewhere.

In discussing Hypothesis 1 (see above), it was suggested
that more sophisticated instruments for measuring romantic love
and liking and a sample group of persons with substantially longer
marriages would have improved its testing. The same critique
is applicable to Hypothesis 2. It is possible that in marriages
which endure for over twenty years, the sentiments of love and
liking tend to balance out. On the other hand, it may be that re-
gardless of duration, marriages embody the same diversity of

needs and expectations as do love relationships outside the pale

53

of marriage. In this case there would be no reason to doubt what
the data adduced in the present study tend to suggest, namely that
there is no relationship between marital status and the extent of
discrepancy between Love Scale scores and Liking Scale scores.

The absence of corroboration for Hypothesis 2 further places
in doubt the viability of theories which contend romantic love and
conjugal love differ in kind. To recapitulate, married couples
and unmarried couples showed no significant differences with
respect to the absolute scores on the Romantic Love Scale; they
likewise showed no significant differences with respect to the
discrepancy between Love Scale scores and Liking Scale scores.

Some apparent support for Hypothesis 3, that marital satis-
faction correlates negatively with the extent of discrepancy be-
tween scores on the Love Scale and Liking Scale, emerged in the
trend of the data before liking and love were partialled out.

The fact that the trend tending to confirm the hypothesis
was reduced to insignificance when, at first, liking and then
love were held constant through partialling demonstrates that the
original correlation coefficients reflected significant correlations
between liking and marital satisfaction and love and marital
satisfaction, rather than the discrepancy between these two

sentiments and marital satisfaction.

54

As noted previously (see Additional Results above), there
were significant correlations between Liking Scale Scores versus
Marital Satisfaction and Love Scale Scores versus Marital Satis-
faction in a positive direction. Partialling revealed that it was
these correlations which produced the apparent correlations be-
tween Discrepancy and Marital Satisfaction in the data collected
as part of the present study.

The theoretical import of these findings is simple and un-
remarkable. Marital satisfaction correlates positively with the
extent of liking. Marital satisfaction correlates positively with

the extent of loving. The difference or discrepancy between the

 

intensity of these two sentiments does not in itself correlate at

all with marital satisfaction. Thus either sufficient love or
sufficient liking may make for a good marriage. Contrary to what
was hypothesized, a balance between love and liking in-and- of-
itself means little or nothing.

These results tend to controvert the argument that romantic
love is intrinsically incompatible with or antagonistic to the
institution of marriage. On the contrary, it seems likely that
romantic love is the mortar which binds and strengthens certain
conjugal unions. In other marriages, liking appears to be primary

in creating marital satisfaction. There does appear to be a

55

strong correlation between contentment in marriage and the
presence at a sufficient level of intensity of at least one or the
other of these constellations of feeling (love or liking). To say
more than this would be to reach beyond the data at hand.

There was virtually no support for Hypothesis 4, that marital
satisfaction correlates positively with intracouple congruence on
Romantic Love Scale elevations and Liking Scale elevations. The
overall trend of the data before male liking and female liking were
partialled out was apparently in the direction predicted. The
strongest correlation coefficient obtained correlated intracouple

congruence on the LikingScale with marital satisfaction for males.

 

After partialling out male liking and female liking (in effect,
holding them constant), the data strongly suggested that marital
satisfaction is independent of intracouple congruence on the love
and liking measures. However) one correlation was not 0: for
males there was a negative correlation (r = - . 30) between marital
satisfaction and incongruence on liking even after liking was
partialled out. That correlation is not significant in itself (p = . 10,
one tail); and as the largest of six correlations pertaining to the
hypothesis, it is statistically quite marginal (p = . 47, one tail).
Thus it is not likely to cross-validate. But until a later study shows
it to be 0, the hypothesis of the independence of marital satisfaction

to intracouple congruence must be held with a caveat.

56

In the absence of more definitive data, it seems reasonable
to presume that two people with differing needs, expectations,
and capacities to give may complement each other even though the
strength of their respective feelings for each other are not in

balance.

Theory and Design

 

The theoretical thread which ran through the hypotheses in
the present study was drawn from the position most outspokenly
pronounced by De Rougemont (1956) and echoed by others (see
Review of the Literature above), that romantic love is an ephemeral,
unrealistic, obstacle-ridden sentiment that is inimical to conjugal
stability. The results of this investigation do not confirm this
viewpoint. Rather, romantic love, as well as liking, seem to play
important roles in binding couples together both within and outside
of the framework of marriage.

Seen in this light, the rising divorce rates in this country may
be due to a waning of romantic love rather than its overabundance.
To be sure, the increase in sexual freedom has removed one of the
primary sources of energy which flows into romantic love--aim-

deflected sexuality. The belief in marriage and concomitant

57

satisfaction with being married may be contingent upon a social
context that promotes sexual scarcity. The ubiquitous romanticism
that pervades the American media (Ellis, 1962) is accompanied at
present by popularized emphasis on sexual mechanics rather than
feelings. It is at least possible that marital satisfaction and the
marriage institution itself rest upon subjective beliefs, many of
them akin to those in romantic legends (idealization, exclusiveness,
etc. ), whose foundations are being undermined by sexual abundance
where there was once artifically created scarcity. Romantic love
may be a threatened ally rather than an irreconcilable enemy of
marital satisfaction.

There were serious flaws in the design of the present study
that precluded a more thorough enquiry into the theoretical issues
that have been raised., Though Rubin (1970, 1973) is due consid-
erable credit for undertaking a most difficult task, there are
notable defects in his Romantic Love Scale and Liking Scale.

With respect to the Love Scale (see Appendix A), at least
five of the thirteen items (Nos. 1, 2, 7, 8, and 12) seem content-
wise to get more at feelings of strong friendship than romantic
love. Also, as noted earlier, the Love Scale fails to incorporate
many of the primary beliefs that sustain romantic love. Many of

the liking items are focussed on admiration and respect, rather

58

than trust and understanding. In short, is is unclear exactly what
the two scales are measuring, and whether they are discriminating
successfully between the two sentiments they purport to measure.

The task of developing more sophisticated means of
operationalizing romantic love and liking is complex and burden-
some. There are many varieties of loving and liking and no clear
demarcation line exists between the two constellations of feeling.
This very elusiveness at the definitional level probably explains
in large measure the relative dearth of scientific research in the
area which was focussed upon in the present study.

Other deficiencies in the design of this research were em-
bedded in the nature of the sample which was used. First, it
would have been desirable to increase the size of the sample
population apart from modifying its characteristics. Secondly,
it is possible that unmarried couples who have been going to-
gether for as long as eighteen months (and who may well be
cohabitating) do not differ significantly in life situation and ex-
pectations from married couples who have been wedded for as
few as three years. It therefore seems advisable in future re-
search to include in the sample a group of married couples who
have been together for as long as twenty or thirty years, and a
group of‘unmarried couples who have been romantically involved

for no more than four months.

59

Turning away from the factor of duration of relationship, the
sample population in the present study (see Table 1) was not repre-
sentative of society at large with respect to social class and
education. Virtually all of the subjects had received at least some
university training. Many were graduate students. It is probable
that working-class attitudes towards romantic love differ significantly
from those of the middle-class. Likewise, minority groups, such as
Blacks, may hold subculturally-specific notions of love and liking.
Because of the non-representative nature of the sample group, the
variables of social class, race, and sub—culture affiliations as they
relate to the concerns of this research could not begin to be assessed.
Finally, a correlation was noted between marital satisfaction and
number of diildren (see Additional Results above). Yet the range
of the number of children among married couples in the sample was
extremely narrow (0 to 2). This range should be broadened in future
research.

Recapitulating some of the major conclusions regarding the
theory and design of this study, the investigation was built upon
what well may be an erroneous theoretical presumption that romantic
love and marriage do not strengthen, and indeed may enervate each
other. The hypotheses rested to a large degree upon the validity of

this presumption. The instruments used to measure romantic love

60

and liking were rather primitive and subject to criticism. They
constitute only a beginning in the task of defining, differentiating,
and operationalizing the sentiments of romantic love and liking.

The sample population which was used Was too small, and could have
been more refined in discriminating between the married and un-
married subjects on the dimensions of duration of relationship and
life situation. In addition, the factors of social class and sub-
cultural affiliation were bypassed as a result of the non-representative
character of the sample population. Since a correlation did emerge
between marital satisfaction and number of offspring, the range of
the latter among sample couples should be broadened in future

research.

SUMMARY

This study was designed to explore the relationship of romantic
love to marital status and marital satisfaction. The role of liking in
marital satisfaction was also considered.

At base, this paper started from the tenet enunciated by many
theorists that romantic love is in many ways incompatible with the
institution of marriage, and that it may pose a threat to marital
satisfaction and stability.

It was hypothesized that the sentiment of romantic love would
be markedly more prevalent and intense among unmarried couples
in comparison with married couples. Also, it was predicted that
married couples would exhibit more of a balance between their
feelings of romantic love and liking than would unmarried couples.

It was further theorized that marital satisfaction was positively
correlated with a balance between the intensity of romantic love and
the intensity of liking, and that the more closely the two members of
a couple matched in terms of the extent of their love and liking for
each other, the more content they would be with their marriage.

To test the above hypotheses, Rubin' s (1970) Romantic Love

Scale and Liking Scale were used as measures of romantic love and

61

62

liking. The Locke-Wallace Scale (Locke 8: Wallace, 1959) was used
to measure marital satisfaction. These instruments were rated by
nineteen married couples between the ages of 22 and 30, who were
married for three to seven years, and nineteen unmarried couples
within the same age range who had gone together for three to
eighteen months.

Contrary to the major theoretical premise of this study-~that
romantic love is somehow antagonistic to marriage--the results
tended to suggest quite the contrary--that romantic love contributes
to marital satisfaction.

In retrospect, several major problems in this study' 3 design
were delineated, as well as implicit suggestions for future research.
The need to develop more sophisticated and reliable means for
measuring romantic love and liking was discussed. Additionally,

deficiencies in sample characteristics were considered, and modi-

fications in the theoretical orientation of this research were suggested.

 

 

 

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

The following items are concerned with attitudes you have about
your spouse or dating partner. In the answer Space provided after
each item, fill in the number from 1 to 9 which best describes the
approximate extent of agreement you feel with respect to each
statement. Note carefully, a response of (1) indicates you are in
total disagreement with what the item says (i. e. , it is completely
untrue). A response of (9) indicates you are in total agreement
with what the item says (i. e. , it is completely true). The midpoint
(5) indicates you are in moderate agreement with what the item says
(i. e. , it is moderately true). Try to find the number on the 1 to 9
continuum which best represents the approximate extent to which
you agree with each statement. Remember, the continuum runs in
the following direction:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totally Moderate- Totally
Disagree ly Agree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

*************************************************************
Answer 1 to 9

 

1. If were feeling badly, my first duty
would be to cheer him (her) up.

 

 

 

2.. I feel I can confide in about virtually
everything.
3. Ifind it easy to ignore 's faults.

 

4. Iwould do almost anything for

 

5. Ifeel very possessive toward

 

6. If I could never be with , Iwould feel
miserable.

 

7. If I were lonely, my first thought would be to
seek out.

 

8. One of my primary concerns is
' s welfare.

 

 

63

 

64

Answer 1 to 9

 

 

 

 

 

 

9. Iwould forgive for practically
anything.
10. I feel responsible for 's
well-being.
11. When I am with , I spend a good deal of
time just looking at him (her).
12. Iwould greatly enjoy being confided in
by —
13. It would be hard for me to get along

without

 

APPENDIX B

The following items are concerned with attitudes you have about
your spouse or dating partner. In the answer space provided after
each item fill in the number from 1 to 9 which best describes the
approximate extent of agreement you feel with respect to each
statement. Note carefully, a response of (1) indicates you are in
total disagreement with what the item says (i. e. , it is completely
untrue). A response of (9) indicates you are in total agreement
with what the item says (i. e. , it is completely true). The midpoint
(5) indicates you are in moderate agreement with what the item says
(i. e. , it is moderately true). Try to find the number on the 1 to 9
continuum which best represents the approximate extent to which
you agree with each statement. Remember, the continuum runs

in the following direction:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

T otally Moderate - T otally
Disagree 1y Agree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

**************************************************************
Answer 1 to

 

1. When I am with , we are almost
always in the same mood.

 

2. I think that is unusually
well-adjusted.

 

3. I would highly recommend for a
responsible position.

 

4. In my opinion, is an exceptionally
mature person.

 

5. I have great confidence in ' 8
good judgment.

 

6. Most people would react very favorably to
after a,brief acquaintance.

 

7. I think that and I are quite
similar to each other.

 

65

 

66

Answer 1 to 9

 

 

 

 

 

 

8. Iwould vote for in a class
or group election.
9. I think that is one of those people
who quickly wins respect.
10. I feel that is an extremely
intelligent person.
11. is one of the most likable
people I know.
12. is the sort of person whom I
myself would like to be.
13. It seems to me that it is very easy for

to gain admiration.

 

67

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

an: . mam . mm .m an .w mum . mmm . m: .m an .o .oHQMHomHE 33 3:03
H . fits on p96: CHDOC H H .w
«in. :3. mm .N E .w moo . - m2. 2.. .N mm .m . 9.838 2:888: 58> 33 H .m.
26 . v2. . mm .H mm .H. va . 0mm . no .m 2 H. . aoH wfifibcw $95: on 3:03 H .v

wmv. www. 2 .m Hug.“ wmv. va . om.H mad . .333
m. 98:? on. hmmo DH USHHH .m

wow. 34. 3 A om .S EN. 43. S. .H E .S :55th Fast?
Son: 5 ocHHcoo :mo H 33 H .m

Hyom . mm;V . g .H mm .H. mmm . mam . or .H mm .H. d: 2:5 83 Rocco 0“ on 3:03 :95:
5:3 in Sivan mcHHooH who? H .H

8:4 954 Om N owaH m:64 Om N
.u h .H .H
m m
mEoHH onomuo>oA
GoH>H GmEoB

 

 

 

 

8:: 53:5 95: 2:55:33
USN @HmUmIGNVOwH m0 mwhoom meUm flan—OH. Saw? mGQfi—GHOHHOU USN .amGOwuwfwmQ Uhdbflmum .mfimmz II N. WJm<B

U NHQZmHAHnH<

 

68

 

69:: “:5 mafia H33 oHMom o>oH pm: So: coobfion :oHamHohnoU w

.Sssqficoo of Ho on: oZfimoa on» mfiamoHpfi .mhmBHw m 5H?

 

 

‘0‘- ...a—a— -

 

.m o» H EouH own?” 53 mEouH 3:33ch Go monoom .moHasoo :3 Ho momaoammu co pomwm n: 6qu
$4. «.8 . .2 .m 2 .m gm. 2.: . E .m 3.: . 32:: 98:...
How 0”. :8 uoH can: on 350? DH .2
3m . 2?. S .H a: N8. was. 3 .H mm .w . .3 E 8328
. mfion hows: 3“:on 3503 H .NH
mHm. Haw. M: .m wad bmH . Hum. mad mvd 4.85 SE a:
9:303 “ma. mafi— Ho Ham: boom m
Baum H . 5H3 Em. H H855 .HH
:5. 31:: mm ”a. E .m ms. 2:. SS mm .m 458::
m _ .HoH oHnHmcoamon HooH H .3
pmm . wmm . no .N vm .m 3: . Ham . no .N E. .m .wfifihcm 31830qu
.HOH o>HmuoH 3503 H .m
0mm. mwm. mm; mag. me. woo. mm; 3;. .oumHHoB m.
E mahoocoo humaza Ina Ho ozo .m
mam. 3%: E .H ma .S vow. 3m. .3 .H om .s :8 x88 8 an 283
Emsofi “man m8 .hHocoH one? H H H.
r

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

69

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1
man. :3. cm .H 35 mam: 2m. 3 .H S .p .Emamwi Bow m.
CH mocmcflcoo «mmhm 95: H .m
mom. Sm. 8 .m ow .o Sm: o2. mm .H 2 .m .8an 3:38 £2338me
cm E 688?? he 5 .v
NS. Sm . mm .H om .N. gm. 2:. E .H g .p doEmoa flamcoam? m ,8“
6:35:00?” mHnmE 3503 H .m
as. mm”. mm .H 36 NS. 30. 85 mm .m .ufimacmfima
gunman: B 35 «Eat H .m
gm. 98. E .H S .m EN. 3H. 24 S .m .82: mamm 2: 5 $25“
93 m3 . 5H3 8m H H855 .H
83 «>3 mm N 83 864 mm M
p p I h .u
n a mem: 28m-mc§5
:32 55803
8:: £355 25: 28m-wq§3
Ucm manomnmkwo‘H mo mwhoom mHmom $305 5.3? mCOHumHmHHOU USN .mGOHumH>®Q Uhdfifidum .mcmmg I: w m4m<H

Q NHQZmHanH<

 

70

 

 

.80”: “an“. mafia H33 39% max: tam Em“: cmmkumn :oHHmennoU ‘

 

 

a,
.gsnficoo 2: Ho 98 m>HHHmoa 9: 33065 mhmBHw m 5H?
.m 3 H Scum mmnwn :mo mEmHH 35233: no mmnoom .mmHmsoo me Ho mmmcoammh :0 nommmH u- .302
mHm . mwm . Hum .H mm .m mum . m: . g .H HH. .w .coHHmAHEnm Sam on. new hmmm
mum; 3 HH «may m5 8 mammm HH .mH
mom . 5v . mm .N HH. .w own . mom . oo .N cm .m .on on. 35 3:03 hmmhfi H
8053 nomnma .3 tom m5 3 .NH
E. 9%. mm .H mm s New . 3%. mm .H mm .m .aofi H maoma
mHnwaH Hmoa 2: Ho mac 3 .HH
m3 . in. 84 3 .p m2 . 8H . aw .H 3 .m .823 EmmEBE
hHmEoH—Nm cm E Hwy: HmoH H .3
.Hommmmh
m8. Em . mm .H 2. .m 33. m2. g .H S g. was $33 of» «flown 39:
Ho 28 E 35 x55 H .m
3m. mam. mm.m wmd me. So. cod mug. .GoHHomHm macaw .Ho
mmmHo m CH .HoH 30> 3503 H .w
:Hq . pow . wH .N Hum .m on . mam . Hum .m NH .m 3850 £98 3 umHHEHm 33c
93 H 98 Hana xfifi H .H.
.mocmufimsuom
5m . mom . mp .H mm .5 8m. #3. 8 .N 8 .p H23 a 8:3. 8 “H3295
hawk, “Emmy 3503 mHaomQ 502 .m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX E

Encircle the dot on the scale below which best describes the degree
of happiness, everything considered, of your present marriage.
The middle point, "happy, ” represents the degree of happiness
which most people get from marriage, and the scale gradually
ranges on one side to those few who are very unhappy in marriage,
and on the other, to those few who experience extreme joy or
felicity in marriage.

Very Happy Perfectly
Unhappy Happy

State the approximate extent of agreement between you and your
mate on the following items. Please encircle the appropriate dots.

Almost
Almost Occa- Fre- Always Always
Always Always sionally quently Dis- Dis-
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree agree agree

Handling family
finances

Matters of
recreation

Demonstrations
of affection

Friends

Sex Relations

Conventionality
(right, good or

proper conduct)

Philosophy of Life

Ways of dealing
with in-laws

71

72

When disagreements arise, they usually result in: husband' 5
giving in , wife giving in , agreement by mutual give and
take

Do you and your mate engage in outside interests together ?
All of them , some of them , very few of them ,

none of them ?

In leisure time do you generally prefer: to be "on the go"

, to stay at home ‘?
Does your mate generally prefer: to be "on the go" ,
to stay at home ?

Do you ever wish you had not married ? Frequently ,
occasionally , rarely , never

If you had your life to live over, do you think you would:

Marry the same person , marry a different person ,
not marry at all ?

Do you confide in your mate: almost never , rarely
in most things , in everything ?

Locke, H. J. and Wallace, K. M. Journal of Marriage and Family
Living, 1959, 21:3, 251-255.

 

APPENDIX F
Locke-Wallace Scale Scoring Key

1. Check the dot on the scale line below which best describes the
degree of happiness, everything considered, of your present
marriage. The middle point, ”happy, " represents the degree of
happiness which most people get from marriage, and the scale
gradually ranges on one side to those few who are very unhappy
in marriage, and on the other, to those few who experience
extreme joy or felicity in marriage.

 

0 2 7 15 2 O 2 5 3 5
V ery Happy Perfectly
Unhappy Happy

State the approximate extent of agreement or disagreement between
you and your mate on the following items. Please check each column.

Almost
Almost Occa- Fre- Always Always
Always Always sionally quently Dis- Dis-
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree agree agree

2 . Handling family
finances 5 4 3 2 1 O

3 . Matters of
recreation 5 4 3 2 1 0

4. Demonstrations

of affection 8 6 4 2 1 O
5. Friends 5 4 3 2 1 0
6. Sex relations 15 12 9 4 1 0

7. Conventionality
(right, good or
proper conduct) 5 4 3 2 1 0

8 . Philosophy of
Life 5 4 3 2 1 0

9. Ways of dealing
with in- laws 5 4 3 2 1 0

73

74

10. When disagreements arise, they usually result in:
husband giving in 0 , wife giving in 2 , agreement by mutual
give and take 10

11. Do you and your mate engage in outside interests
together? All of them 10 , some of them 8 , very few of
them 3 , none of them 0

12. In leisure time do you generally prefer: to be "on the
go" , to stay at home ? Does your mate generally
prefer: to be "on the go" , to stay at home ? (Stay at

home for both, 10 points; "on the go" for both 3 points; disagreement,
2 points. )

13. Do you ever wish you had not married? Frequently 0 ,
occasionally 3 , rarely 8 , never 15

14. If you had your life to live over, do you think you would:
marry the same person 15 , marry a different person 0 , not
marry at all 1 ?

15. Do you confideinyour mate: almost never 0 , rarely 2 ,
in most things 10 , ineverything 10 ?

BIBLIOGRA PHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Askew, Melvin W. Courtly Love: Neurosis as Institution. The
Psychoanalytic Review, Vol. 52, No. 1, 1965, 19-29.

 

Bach, George & Wyden, Peter. The Intimate Enemy. New York:
William Morrow 8: Co. Inc., 1969, 218-255.

 

Beauvoir, Simone de. The Second Sex. New York: Knopf, Inc. ,
1952, 129-185.

 

Beigel, Huge G. Romantic Love. American Sociological Review,
1951, 326-334.

 

Bromberg, Walter & Schilder, Paul. Death and Dying. The

Psychoanalytic Review, Vol. XX, Jan., 1933, 133-185.

 

The Attitude of Psychoneurotics
Towards Death. The Psychoanalytic Review, Vol. XXIII,
1936, 1-25.

 

 

Brown, Norman 0. Life Against Death. Middletown: Wesleyan
University Press, 1959, 110-137.

 

Choren, Jacques. Modern Man and Mortality. New York: The
Macmillan Company, 1964, 112-186.

 

Dean, Edward S. Psychotherapy and Romantic Love. American
Journal of Psychotherapy, 1962, 441-451.

 

Dickstein, Louis S. & Blatt, Sidney J. Death Concern, Futurity
and Anticipation. Journal of Consulting Psychology, Vol. 30,
No. 1, 1966, 11-17.

 

Ellis, Albert. The American Sexual Tragedy. New York: Lyle
Stuart, 1962 rev. ed., 66-138.

 

Evans, William N. Two Kinds of Romantic Love. The Psycho-
analfiic Quarterly, No. 1, 1953, 75-85.

 

 

75

76

Fenichel, Otto. The Psychoanalytic Theory of Neurosis. New
York: Norton, 1945, 84-101.

Friedan, Betty. The Feminine Mjstique. New York: Norton,
1963.

Freud, Sigmund. Civilization and Its Discontents. New York:
Norton, 1961 ed., 21-32, 55-63.

. Sexuality and the Psychology of Love.
New York: Collier Books, 1963, 49-58, 176-182.

Friedman, David B. Death Anxiety and the Primal Scene.
Psychoanalfisis and The Psychoanalytic Review, Vol. 48,
No. 4, 1961-1962, 108—118.

Fromm, Eric. The Art of Loving. New York: Bantam Books,
1956, 70—90.

 

Galdston, Iago. Eros and Thanatos. The American Journal of
Psychoanalysis, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1955, 123-134.

 

Glass, Gene V. 8: Stanley, Julian. Statistical Methods In Education
and Psychology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1970.

 

Glenn, Michael & Kunnes, Richard. Repression or Revolution?
New York: Harper & Row, 1973, 90-139.

Greenberger, Ellen. 'Flirting' With Death: Fantasies of a
Critically Ill Woman. Journal of Projective Techniques
and PersonalityAssessment. Vol. 30, No. 2, April, 1966.

Harper, Ralph. Human Love. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press,
1966, 17-23.

 

Hitschmann, Edward. Freud's Conception of Love. The Inter-
national Journal of ngchoanalysis, Vol. XXXIII, Part 4,
1952, 421-427.

 

Horney, Karen. Feminine Psychology. New York: Norton,
1967, 182-214, 245-259.

 

Hunter, John E. FACTRB--Preliminary User' 8 Manual.
Unpublished Report, 1973.

77

Hunter, John E. and Cohen, Stanley H. PACKAGE, User Manual
for Comp_uter Institute for Social Science Research, 1971,
Version 1. O.

 

 

Hurley, John R. and Palonien, Donna P. Marital Satisfaction and
Child Density Among University Student Parents. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, Aug. 1967, 483-484.

 

 

Knox, David. Conceptions of Love at Three Developmental Levels.
The Family Coordinator. April, 1970, 151 156.

 

K0 enigsberg, Richard A. Culture and Unconscious Fantasy:
Observations on Courtly Love. The ngchoanalytic Review,
Spring, 1967, 36-50.

 

Harrington, Alan. The Immortalist. New York: Randon House,
1969, 146-157.

 

Kremen, Howard & Kremen, Bennett. Romantic Love and
Idealization. The American Journal of Psychoanalysis.
Vol. 31, No. 2, 1971, 134-143.

 

Lederer, William & Jackson, Don. The Mirages of Marriage.
New York: Norton, 1968, 21-85.

 

Locke, Harvey J. & Wallace, Karl M. Short Marital Adjustment
and Prediction Tests: Their Reliability and Validity.
Marriage and Family Living, August, 1959, 251-255.

 

Locke, Harvey J. Predicting Adjustment in Marriage. New
York: Greenwood Press, 1968.

 

Marcuse, Herbert. Eros and Civilization. New York: Vintage
Books, 1962, 203-217.

 

. One-Dimensional Man. Boston:
Beacon Press, 1964, 56-84.

 

 

May, Rollo. Love and Will. New York: Norton, 1969, 99-121.

 

Nunnally, Jum C. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1967.

 

78

O'Neill, Nena 8: O'Neill, George. Open Marriage. New York:
Evans, 1972, 15-45.

 

Pfeifer, Sigmund. On a Form of Defense. The Psychoanalytic
1Quarterly, Vol. IX, No. 1, 1940, 108-113.

Reik, Theodor. A Psychologist Looks At Love. New York:
Farrar & Rinehart, Inc., 1944, 291-300.

 

Rougemont, Denis De. Love In The Western World. New York:
Pantheon, 1956, 15-55, 299-323.

 

Rubin, Zick. Measurement of Romantic Love. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 16, No. 2,
1970, 265-273.

 

 

Liking and Loving. New York,
Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1973.

 

 

Sadler, William A. Existence and Love. New York: Scribner' s,
1969, 224-240.

 

Shneidman, Edwin S. On the Deromanticization of Death.
American Journal of ngchotherapy, Jan. , 1971, 4-17.

 

Slater, Philip. OnSocial Regression. American Sociological
Review, Vol. 28, No. 3, June, 1963, 339-364.

. The Pursuit of Loneliness.
Boston: Beacon Press, 1971, 81-95.

 

 

Sullivan, Charles T. On Being Loved. The Psychoanalytic
Review. Vol. 52, No. 1, 1965, 5-17.

 

Templer, Donald 1. The Construction and Validation of a Death
Anxiety Scale. The Journal of General Psychology,
82, 1970, 165-177.

 

HICHIGRN STRTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES

ll"
1

312931008

1375