Your Man Is in My Dms Again Take This Sis

Introduction

Honey and detest are important man affects that are of long-continuing interest in psychology. Increasingly, empirical research has been carried out on the relationship between love and hate. However, traditional psychological theories accept mainly focused on beloved, especially romantic love. These include Sternberg's (1986) triangular theory of dear and the three-phase model of love (Fisher, 1989; Fisher et al., 2006). Love has been defined as an activity (Swensen, 1972), attitude (Rubin, 1970), feel (Skolnick, 1978), and even as a prototypical emotion (Fehr and Russell, 1991; Post, 2002; Sober, 2002; Wyschogrod, 2002). Collectively, these definitions propose that love is a multi-faced miracle (Ekman, 1972; Izard, 1977; Tomkins, 1984). Hate, within the context of a romantic relationship, arises mainly from a relational betrayal. Researchers take proposed a concept related to romantic hate, romantic jealousy, which describes the negative attitudes, anger, and fright associated with having a relationship partner (Yoshimura, 2004).

Beloved and hate are related to each other in a complex manner; the methodological approaches used past previous researchers have limited effectiveness in exploring the intricate relationship between dearest and hate. In add-on, there has been little research on the psychological mechanisms that could explicate the interrelations between dear and hate. Therefore, our report investigates how these 2 affects are related. To pursue such a research objective, i must consider how best to induce varying levels of feelings of beloved.

Previous studies have found that attraction is a crucial condition for the development of romantic honey (Cutler et al., 1998; Braxton-Davis, 2010; Miller and Maner, 2010). Similarity, rather than complementarity, plays a key part in attraction (Berscheid and Reis, 1998; Luo and Klohnen, 2005; Hudson et al., 2014). Many aspects of similarity accept been studied in relation to attraction. In the current study, nosotros focused on similarity in ideologies. That is, persons with like ideologies (divers here in terms of values and interests) tend to form longer lasting and more harmonious relationships (Buunk and Bosman, 1986; Lemay and Clark, 2008). Ideological similarity too implies commonalities in behaviors which further contribute to mutual attraction in the context of romantic beloved (Schafer and Keith, 1990). From this perspective, similarity may be a key factor that influences the degree of love. In addition, researchers found that differences in excellence levels, such as those relating to ability and achievement, between partners would also be an important factor influencing romantic relationships (Conroy-Beam et al., 2016).

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

We examined two research questions in the electric current inquiry. First, would in that location exist greater feelings of dearest between two persons if they were more like to each other? Second, under certain atmospheric condition, does a person's love generate a corresponding level of hate when negative events occurred to his or her romantic partner?

In this written report, we implemented a paradigm similar to what has been used in previous enquiry (Takahashi et al., 2009), and adapted the scenario method to induce honey and detest. The characters in the scenario included 1 protagonist and iii targets. Participants read the scenario and imagined that they were the protagonist and were in a romantic relationship with i of the target. Nosotros induced dissimilar levels of dear by manipulating the degree of similarity (east.one thousand., values and interests) and excellence (eastward.g., ability and achievements) betwixt the protagonist and target persons in the vignettes. We too induced detest using vignettes that showed target persons betraying the protagonist, such as going on dates or having affairs with people of the opposite-sex. We hypothesized that greater similarity between a participant (protagonist) and a target would be associated with greater feelings of love, and that when negative events occur with the protagonist'south romantic partner, the target would exist associated with greater feelings of hate.

Materials and Methods

Participants

Threescore volunteers, recruited from different colleges, participated in the experiment. One participant had misunderstood the instructions and was thus excluded from the analyses. As a issue, the last studied sample consists of 59 participants (thirty men, 29 women, age M = twenty.ii years, SD = i.5). None of the participants reported any previous diagnoses of psychiatric or neurological illnesses. Roughly 18% of the participants said they were looking for a relationship, 33% were in a relationship, 24% had experienced a pause-up, and the remaining 25% had non been in whatsoever relationships. The report was canonical by the Ethics Committee of the School of Psychology at South Mainland china Normal University. Each participant had provided written informed consent prior to participating in the experiment. They were also given small tokens of appreciation for their participation.

Materials

The vignettes used in the present experimental paradigm were adjusted from a previous study that investigated the neural correlates of envy and schadenfreude (Takahashi et al., 2009). The vignettes were modified to fit the present romantic honey context, according to the previous definitions of love (Hatfield and Sprecher, 1986; Schafer and Keith, 1990). The people in the vignettes included one protagonist and three targets (i.e., targets A, B, and C) corresponding to three manipulated weather (meet Supplementary Material). Participants were asked to study and understand the vignettes thoroughly and to imagine themselves as the protagonist in the vignettes. Target A was described as a person of equal level of excellence and high similarity to the protagonist, target B as equal level of excellence and low similarity to the protagonist, and target C as low level of excellence and low similarity to the protagonist (target C). Encounter Supplementary Table S1 for details.

Questionnaire

Nosotros used the xv-particular Passionate Love Scale (PLS; Hatfield and Sprecher, 1998) to measure out the caste of honey evoked by each participant in the vignettes. An instance of an item in the PLS is, "I would rather be with him/her than anyone else…" Participants rated each item co-ordinate to the caste of passionate dear they perceived (one = none; ix = extremely passionate dearest). The PLS is suitable for individuals who are and are non in a relationship, and for individuals who have never been in a romantic relationship (Hatfield and Sprecher, 1986; Aron et al., 2005). The reliability and validity of this scale accept been established in previous studies (Hatfield and Sprecher, 1986; Fehr, 1988; Hendrick and Hendrick, 1989; Fehr and Russell, 1991). Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.94 in the present study.

Procedures

Learning Materials

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

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

Figure ii. Part 2 consisted of 2 phases: rating on the computer and completing the PLS. This effigy presents a schematic depiction of the stimuli and rating task design of Function 2 (hate). Specific traits of Lover A, Lover B, and Lover C were presented equally in Office ane. Each trait was followed by a subsequent negative event, which was presented for 2000 ms or until response. The top line indicated a target person, and the bottom line indicated a negative result. A 1000 ms inter-stimulus interval was interleaved betwixt each trait and negative upshot.

First, participants were asked to read a story and imagine that they were the protagonist (meet Supplementary Cloth). Adjacent, the participants were asked to recall relevant key details nigh themselves by responding to sentences kickoff with "I am…" Following this, participants were instructed to read three vignettes describing three dissimilar situations. Each vignette involved the protagonist and iii targets. Participants were asked to recall the data relating to each target through free recall. Participants were then asked to imagine that they were in a romantic relationship with the target.

Ratings and Measurements

Nosotros used E-Prime 2.0 to nowadays the items in a random order [we included 15 core items from each vignette into the reading materials of each target (come across Supplementary Table S1)]. After the participants studied the materials, they completed the rating task on the estimator and and so completed the PLS in both Function 1 and Part 2. Participants gave i honey score per detail per target person in Function 1 and one hate score per negative event per target person in Role 2, every bit well every bit two PLS scores before and after the negative events.

In Function ane, nosotros asked participants to imagine themselves equally the protagonist when reading the scenario, and then charge per unit each trait presented in terms of how much love they felt toward a target based on the presented features of the three targets (i = none; 6 = extreme beloved). After that, nosotros used the PLS to mensurate participants' feelings of dear with the three targets.

In Function two of the experiment, the background characteristics of A, B, and C were unchanged; however, we created vignettes in which the targets betrayed the protagonist, for example by having an matter with someone of the opposite sex (meet the negative events in Supplementary Table S1). Participants were then asked to rate how much hate they felt toward A, B, and C (1 = none; half dozen = extreme hate). Upon completion of Office two, participants completed the PLS again to assess their feelings of beloved toward the 3 targets.

Assay

Nosotros used several analyses to exam our hypotheses. The scores from love ratings, hate ratings, and the PLS items were averaged within subjects prior to the analyses. Specifically, we used 1-way repeated measures of analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test for differences in participants' love ratings, hate ratings, and PLS scores for targets A, B, and C; these analyses were conducted for scenarios with and without betrayal (Part one and 2). Uncomplicated effect tests were performed when the interaction effect was significant.

Additionally, nosotros used a 3 (target: A, B, and C) × 2 (time: earlier vs. after) ii-way repeated measures ANOVA to analyze the degree of dearest level perceived by the protagonist in relation to the three targets before and after the negative events. Adjacent, we used a 3 (target: A, B, and C) × 2 (affect: dearest vs. detest) ii-manner repeated measures ANOVA to clarify the relationship betwixt the beloved and hate scores. Tests of elementary primary furnishings were performed when an interaction effect was statistically significant. In add-on, we used Pearson's correlation analysis to exam the correlations between scores for love and hate. Subsequently, we used fractional correlations to examine the association betwixt dear and hate controlling for participants' gender and historic period.

Results

Caste of Dear

Across the different conditions (targets A, B, and C), the results of the one-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed significant differences in perceived feelings of love [F(2,116) = 985.710, p < 0.001, η² = 0.944]. Farther analyses of the simple main furnishings showed that the degree of love toward target A (5.53 ± 0.48) was significantly higher than that of target B (4.52 ± 0.54) [F(1,58) = 177.796, p < 0.001, η² = 0.754], and the caste of beloved toward B was significantly college than that of target C (i.66 ± 0.45) [F(1,58) = 977.526, p < 0.001, η^two = 0.944].

Additionally, across the different targets, the results of the one-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed significant differences in participants' PLS scores of the 3 targets [F(2,116) = 450.352, p < 0.001, η² = 0.886]. Further analyses of the simple main furnishings showed that the degree of passionate love toward target A (109.73 ± xi.fourscore) was significantly higher than that of target B (93.46 ± xiv.59) [F(1,58) = 60.263, p < 0.001, ηⁱⁱ = 0.510], and the degree of passionate honey toward target B was significantly higher than that of target C (38.39 ± 20.40) [F(1,58) = 519.537, p < 0.001, ηⁱⁱ = 0.900].

Degree of Detest

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

Beyond the different targets, the results of the one-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed significant differences of the overall PLS scores after the negative event manipulation [F(2,116) = 316.544, p < 0.001, η^two = 0.845]. Farther analyses of the simple primary effects showed that the PLS score for target A (88.95 ± 22.00) was significantly college than that of target B (71.97 ± 21.83) [F(1,58) = 63.119, p < 0.001, ηⁱⁱ = 0.521], and the score for target B was significantly college than that of target C (27.81 ± 14.39) [F(1,58) = 333.357, p < 0.001, η² = 0.852].

The iii (targets: A, B, C) × 2 (fourth dimension: before vs. later) two-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant target × time interaction [F(two,116) = 10.432, p < 0.001, ηⁱⁱ = 0.152] on PLS scores. Further simple main effect analyses revealed that after the negative result manipulation, participants' love scores for target A was significantly lower than before the manipulation [A-Earlier: 109.73 ± eleven.lxxx, A-After: 88.95 ± 22.00; F(1,58) = 74.822, p < 0.001, η^two = 0.560]. Similarly, participants' dear scores for target B [B-Before: 93.46 ± xiv.59, B-After: 71.97 ± 21.83; F(1,58) = 68.179, p < 0.001, η² = 0.540] and target C were also significantly lower than earlier the manipulation [C-Before: 38.39 ± xx.40, C-Afterwards: 27.81 ± 14.39; F(1,58) = 27.842, p < 0.001, η² = 0.324].

Honey and Hate

The three (targets: A, B, C) × 2 (affect: love vs. hate) two-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant target × affect interaction [F(2,116) = 95.357, p < 0.001, η² = 0.622]. Further elementary effect analyses found that participants' honey of target A was significantly higher than that of hate, even if they were betrayed by target A [A-Honey: 5.53 ± 0.48, A-Hate: 5.25 ± 0.57; F(1,58) = 17.889, p < 0.001, η^two = 0.236]. Conversely, participants' beloved for target B was significantly lower than that of hate [B-Dearest: four.52 ± 0.54, B-Hate: 4.84 ± 0.55; F(1,58) = xiv.652, p < 0.001, η² = 0.202]. Similarly, participants' love for target C was also significantly lower than that of detest [C-Beloved: ane.66 ± 0.45, C-Detest: three.02 ± 0.98; F(1,58) = 102.933, p < 0.001, η² = 0.640] (Effigy 3).

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

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

Give-and-take

This report used an experimental paradigm to written report the human relationship betwixt romantic love and detest. The current study provided back up for a link betwixt the two affects and insights into the influence of similarity in romantic relationships. Nosotros found that people accept different emotional reactions toward dissimilar target persons in the context of romantic love and hate. The relationship between romantic love and detest was revealed to be more complex than expected.

Kickoff, our results showed that feelings of love were influenced by similarity. That is, individuals, who were experimentally induced to experience feelings of love, felt stronger love toward someone of the reverse sexual activity who was like to them, thus, supporting our first hypothesis. Previous studies accept examined whether similarity or complementarity played a more vital role in mutual attraction (Berscheid and Reis, 1998) and ended that the onetime was more important. This view has as well been supported by enquiry looking at mate preferences (Luo and Klohnen, 2005) and quality of marital relationships (Hudson et al., 2014).

Previous studies had mostly recruited couples or partners who were already in a relationship, and there is piddling directly show on whether the similarity of the two individuals had a crucial role in the development of a romantic relationship. A recent study (Conroy-Axle et al., 2016) reported that mate value discrepancies predicted relationship satisfaction. To some extent, they considered the equivalence in social condition between both partners to be an important factor relating to relationship satisfaction. In our study, however, when the participants were presented with 2 potential partners equal to them in excellence, participants perceived greater love for the one who was more similar to themselves. Relatedly, similarity as well played an important role in mate selection. Our findings complemented the findings of other research in this area. Individuals who were similar to each other easily formed good impressions of each other within a brusk fourth dimension. This finding combined with results of previous studies suggests that similarity plays a vital role in attraction, regardless of situations involving "dearest at first sight" or impressions based on long-term exchanges.

Second, we found significant associations between romantic love and hate in the context of a romantic relationship. When presented with negative events with iii dissimilar target persons, participants most hated the person whom they had loved the most previously. Therefore, love and hate are indeed related. Equally Alford (2005) proposed, hate is an simulated of love and as well a type of human relationship with others and oneself. That is, in managing their relationships with others, people are at the same fourth dimension managing themselves and their psyches (Alford, 2005). In the context of an individual's love and detest, when the relationship 1 had adult with a detail partner was destroyed, the romantic love consequently turned into hate. Peculiarly from the perspectives of young couples in romantic relationships, hate is also a reflection of love.

The human relationship between beloved and hate can be explained from different perspectives. Romantic detest may be rooted in romantic jealousy. Previous enquiry proposed emotional jealousy and cognitive jealousy as constituents of romantic jealousy. Emotional jealousy reflects the anger and fright of the individual in love, while cognitive jealousy mainly relates to the individual'south negative attitude to lovers (Yoshimura, 2004). Therefore, we speculate that it is a lover's betrayal that causes acrimony and other negative emotions, resulting in hate. Moreover, cognitive jealousy is directly related to relationship dissatisfaction between lovers (Elphinston et al., 2013). Previous studies have also found a positive human relationship betwixt romantic dearest and jealousy. That is, the more i loves a person, the more sensitive ane becomes when encountering threats to the relationship (Mathes and Severa, 1981; Orosz et al., 2015). Thus, individuals feel more than honey and more hatred toward the same lover.

The observed miracle of "the deeper the love, the deeper the hate" may also exist attributed to the perception of equity imbalance. Researchers take proposed the concept of "perception of equity" based on equity theory and state that equity can be achieved by irresolute one's perception of investments in the human relationship or its results (Walster et al., 1973). According to equity theory, equity is calculated from both the individual'due south inputs and the resulting outcomes (Hatfield et al., 1979). Thus, in our context, the more than one loves a person, the more psychological investment i makes. Yet, when there is an imbalance between the individual'south inputs and outcomes, the perception of equity is lost, thus, resulting in a change of perception between hate and love.

At the same fourth dimension, our results showed a meaning interaction between targets (A vs. B vs. C) and affects (love vs. hate). Farther analyses revealed that an individual'southward degree of love for target A (equal excellence and high similarity with the protagonist) is still higher than the degree of detest after negative event manipulation, but the results were reversed for target B (equal excellence and low similarity with the protagonist) and target C (unequal excellence and depression similarity with the protagonist). In other words, although the three targets were associated with the aforementioned negative events, the level of hatred varied beyond the three targets. If, initially, the individual loved the target the most, the degree of love is withal higher than that of hate after the negative event. Withal, when the private did non honey the target equally much initially, the degree of love would exist markedly lower than that of detest.

These results illustrate the complexity associated with romantic love and hate. People have different emotional reactions toward different target persons in the context of romantic love and hate. For the person whom one loves the nigh or even hates, love may still be ascendant in the context of expose. This hate is a reflection of beloved and a feeling of sorrow. However, for the person one does not honey, feelings of hate are stronger than those of honey. This detest perchance has its roots in the moral dimension, which mainly concern social judgments virtually the quality of a person. This is why people feel such hurting upon betrayal in a romantic relationship.

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

In summary, nosotros demand to comprehend the relationship between love and hate both rationally and emotionally. If we pay close attending to detest, nosotros tin can meliorate understand dear (Tjeltveit, 2003). This idea justified us carrying out the current study. However, there are three limitations to this study. Offset, even though we emphasized that the protagonist would be described in three different relationships in different periods of life, this manipulation could not guarantee that participants could generate independent feelings of love for the three target persons. Second, in order to maximize external validity of the report, we did not control for participants' current relationship condition. In our future inquiry, we may explore whether relationship status predicts feelings of love and detest using this experimental prototype. Third, the findings of the current written report were as well limited by the manipulation of similarity between the participants and the iii targets. The use of vignettes meant that the manipulation of similarity might have partly depended on how well the participants were able to imagine themselves as the protagonist in the vignettes.

Determination

Our results supported the idea that "the deeper the honey, the deeper the detest," and suggested similarity every bit a crucial factor influencing feelings of love and hate. In addition, people take different emotional reactions toward different people in the context of romantic beloved and hate. For the person whom one loves or hates the near, love may yet be dominant in the context of betrayal. However, for the person one does non honey, feelings of hatred are stronger than those of love. This study too provided support for the relationship between romantic love and hate, and highlighted the important function of similarity in moderating the relationship betwixt love and detest.

Ethics Statement

The present study was canonical by the Ethic Committee of the Schoolhouse of Psychology at Southward China Normal University. Each participant volunteered to have part in this report and provided written informed consent earlier the offset of the experiment.

Writer Contributions

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

Funding

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

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the enquiry was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of involvement.

Supplementary Material

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

References

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

Google Scholar

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

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

Braxton-Davis, P. (2010). The social psychology of beloved and attraction. McNair Scholars J. 14, 6–10.

Google Scholar

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

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cutler, W. B., Friedmann, East., and McCoy, N. L. (1998). Pheromonal influences on sociosexual behavior in men. Curvation. Sex activity. Behav. 27, 1–thirteen. doi: ten.1097/00042192-199704040-00088

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

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

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fehr, B. (1988). Epitome assay of the concepts of dearest and delivery. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 55:557. doi: x.1037/0022-3514.55.4.557

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fehr, B., and Russell, J. A. (1991). The concept of beloved viewed from a prototype perspective. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 60:425. doi: x.1037/0022-3514.60.iii.425

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fisher, H. E., Aron, A., and Dark-brown, L. L. (2006). Romantic honey: a mammalian brain arrangement for mate choice. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 361, 2173–2186. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2006.1938

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Graham, S. M., and Clark, M. S. (2006). Cocky-esteem and organisation of valenced information about others: the" Jekyll and Hyde"-ing of relationship partners. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 90:652. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.iv.652

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hatfield, East., and Sprecher, Southward. (1998). "The passionate love scale," in Handbook of Sexuality-related Measures, eds T. D. Fisher, C. G. Davis, West. L. Yaber, and S. L. Davis (Thousand Oaks, CA: Taylor & Francis), 449–451.

Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

Hendrick, C., and Hendrick, S. S. (1989). Inquiry on honey: does it measure up? J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 56:784. doi: x.1037/0022-3514.56.5.784

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

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

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lemay, E. P., and Clark, M. Due south. (2008). How the head liberates the heart: project of communal responsiveness guides relationship promotion. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 94, 647–671. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.94.four.647

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mathes, E. Westward., and Severa, N. (1981). Jealousy, romantic beloved, and liking: theoretical considerations and preliminary scale development. Psychol. Rep. 49, 23–31. doi: ten.2466/pr0.1981.49.1.23

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Orosz, G., Szekeres,Á., Kiss, Z. G., Farkas, P., and Roland-Lévy, C. (2015). Elevated romantic love and jealousy if relationship status is declared on Facebook. Forepart. Psychol. vi:214. doi: x.3389/fpsyg.2015.00214

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Post, S. One thousand. (2002). "The tradition of agape," in Altruism and Altruistic Dearest: Science, Philosophy, eds Due south. G. Mail, L. M. Underwood, J. P. Schloss, and W. B. Hurlbut (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Google Scholar

Schafer, R. B., and Keith, P. 1000. (1990). Matching by weight in married couples: a life cycle perspective. J. Soc. Psychol. 130, 657–664. doi: 10.1080/00224545.1990.9922958

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

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

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

Tomkins, Southward. (1984). "Affect theory," in Approaches to Emotion, eds Grand. R. Scherer and P. Ekman (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assembly).

Google Scholar

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

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Wyschogrod, E. (2002). "Pythagorean bodies and the body of altruism," in Altruism and Altruistic Love: Science, Philosophy, and Religion in Dialogue, eds S. G. Post, L. G. Underwoood, J. P. Schloss, and West. B. Hurburt (New York, NY: Oxford Academy Press), 29–39.

Google Scholar

Yoshimura, S. M. (2004). Emotional and behavioral responses to romantic jealousy expressions. Commun. Rep. 17, 85–101. doi: 10.1080/08934210409389378

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

rosswhia1959.blogspot.com

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

Share this post