Personal Relationships, 1 (1994), 309-331. Printed in the United States of America.

Copyright 0 1994 Cambridge University Press. 1350-4126/94 $5.00 + .OO

Prototype-based assessment of
laypeople’s views of love

BEVERLEY FEHR
University of Winnipeg

Abstract
Empirical work on love has focused mainly on romantic/passionate love. Recent research suggests that other
kinds of love, such as friendship love and familial love, may be more salient to laypeople (Fehr & Russell,
1991). One purpose of this research was to offer a more complete picture of how laypeople conceptualize love
by exploring a broad range of types of love. The other major purpose was to develop a methodology for
studying laypeople’s conceptions of different kinds of love. Four studies were conducted. In Study 1,dating
couples were presented with prototypes of 15 different types of love. They were asked to rate how similar the
conception of love depicted in each prototype was to their own view of love. Study 2 was a replication of Study
1with subjects who were not dating one another. In Study 3, the validity of the prototype measures was
explored by asking subjects to determine the kind of love depicted in each prototype. Study 4 investigated the
relation between the prototypes of love and existing love scales and therefore addressed issues of convergent
and discriminant validity. These prototype-based measures showed considerable promise as valid, reliable
instruments for assessing people’s views of love. They revealed that laypeople regard friendship love and
familial kinds of love as closest to their own view. Passionate kinds of love (e.g., passionate, infatuation, puppy
love) received the lowest ratings. The measures also provcd useful in elucidating the relation between
laypeople’s and experts’ conceptions of romantic and passionate love.

Attempts to assess people’s views of love sess the experience of passionate love.
date back to at least 1944 when Gross de- Scales to distinguish love from liking were
veloped a scale to measure romantic love published by Rubin (1970). More recently,
beliefs. Since then a number of scales to Hendrick and Hendrick (1986) created
measure romantic beliefs or attitudes have scales for each of six love styles as concep-
been constructed (e.g., Dion & Dion, 1985; tualized by Lee (1973):Eros (romantic, pas-
Knox & Sporakowski, 1968; Munro & sionate love), Storge (friendship love),
Adams, 1978; Sprecher & Metts, 1989).This Ludus (game-playing love), Pragma (logi-
work also spawned the construction of cal, practical love), Mania (possessive, de-
measures of related kinds of love and love pendent love), and Agape (altruistic love).
experiences. For example, Kanin, Davidson, Most of the scale construction and vali-
and Scheck (1970) and Hatfield and Spre- dation research continues to focus on ro-
cher (1986) developed instruments to as- mantic/passionate love, and the result has
been a marked increase in our knowledge
of romantic love and its relation to impor-
This rcsearch was supported, in part, by a University of
Winnipeg-Social Sciences and Humanities Research tant relationship processes (see, e.g., Stern-
Council grant. I am indebted to Mark Baldwin, Keith berg & Barnes, 1988). However, one won-
Davis, and three anonymous reviewers for their very ders whether romantic love is as salient to
helpful comments on an carlicr draft of this article. the participants in these studies as it is to
Correspondence concerning this article should be love researchers. Does romantic love come
sent to Bcvcrley Fehr, Department of Psychology, Uni-
versity of Winnipeg, Winnipcg,Manitoba,Canada,R3B to mind when research subjects are asked
2E9. to think about love? Some hints are pro-

309
310
vided in a series of studies conducted by
Fehr and Russell (1991). We asked laypeo-
ple to list types of love (Fehr & Russell,
1991, Study 1). Romantic love was, in fact,
one of the most frequently listed kinds of
love-it ranked eighth in a list of over 200
types. However, it was preceded by friend-
ship love (ranked first) and various kinds of
familial love (parental, maternal, broth-
erly). In a subsequent study (Fehr &
Russell, 1991, Study 2), subjects rated 20 of
these types according to how repre-
sentative they were of the concept ‘‘love.’’
Romantic love was seen as a prototypical
kind of love-it received the fifth highest
rating. However, once again, maternal love,
parental love, friendship love, and sisterly
love were seen as more representative, or
closer to the core meaning, of the concept.
These findings suggest a need for research
on the kinds of love that laypeople deem
most central to the concept (e.g., maternal
love, friendship love), in addition to extant
investigations of romantic love.
One purpose of this research, therefore,
was to explore a broader range of types of
love than is usually considered in social sci-
ence research. I wanted to include types of
love that are regarded by laypeople as
highly representative of the concept (e.g.,
maternal and other kinds of familial love),
as well as types that are seen as less central,
but nevertheless considered part of the
layperson’s conception. For example, in-
fatuation, puppy love, platonic love, and
sexual love have received little, if any, em-
pirical attention. One of the reasons for so
little research on these types of love is the
absence of scales with which to measure
them. Thus, a second, related purpose of this
research was to develop a methodology
based on lay conceptions for assessing peo-
ple’s views of various kinds of love. Such an
assessment device would then enable ex-
ploration of other important issues pertain-
ing to people’s conceptions of love, includ-
ing gender and personality differences (see
Fehr & Broughton, 1994) and the relation
between experts’ and laypeople’s conceptu-
alizations (see Study 4).
B. Fehr
Overview
Four studies were conducted. In Study 1,
subjects rated how similar the conception of
love depicted in 15 prototypes was to their
own view of love. The stability of these rat-
ings over time was assessed. Study 2 served
as a replication of Study 1, with a different
sample and a longer time interval between
ratings. In Study 3, the validity of this proto-
type measure was explored by asking sub-
jects to determine the kind of love depicted
in each prototype. Study 4 investigated the
relation between the prototypes of love and
existing love scales and therefore addressed
issues of convergent and discriminant valid-
ity of the prototype measures.
Study 1. Assessing Views of Love:
A Prototype-Based Strategy
A number of prototype strategies have been
used to refine predictor and criterion meas-
ures in personality assessment research (e.g.,
Broughton, 1984;Buss & Craik, 1980,1983).
A recent development has been the presen-
tation of scenarios depicting characters who
perform various prototypical, trait-based
acts (Broughton, 1986, 1990). A subject’s
standing on a given trait is assessed by hav-
ing the subject rate how similar he or she is
to the hypothetical character exemplifying
that trait. A similar approach to assessment
of views of love was taken here, given that
scales based explicitly on laypeople’s views
are not currently available. Subjects were
presented with prototypes of different kinds
of love and were asked to rate how similar
the view of love depicted in each prototype
was to their own view. Two questions were of
particular interest. First, would subjects be
able to make meaningful judgments about
their views of love using this similarity-to-
prototype measure? Second, would such
ratings be reliable?
In Phase 1 of this study, subjects listed
types of love. In Phase 2, another group of
subjects listed features for 15 of these types.
In Phase 3 , subjects were dating couples
who rated how similar each of the 15 fea-
Assessment of views of love
ture lists (derived in Phase 2) was to their
own view of love.
Method
The first two phases of this study will be
described only briefly because the data
were collected in the context of a larger
research project described elsewhere (Fehr
& Russell, 1991).
Phase 1: Generating types of love
Subjects ( N = 84) simply were asked to list
types of love. In all, 216 items were gener-
ated, 93 of which were listed by more than
one subject. Each subject generated an av-
erage of 8.69 types. (See Study 1 in Fehr &
Russell, 1991, for a more complete descrip-
tion of this phase.)
Phase 2: Listing features of 15 types of love
Fifteen target types of love were chosen. As
is usual in prototype research (e.g., Fehr &
Russell, 1984, 1991; Russell & Fehr, 1994),
these included the 10 types that were gener-
ated with the highest frequency in Phase 1
(friendship love, sexual love, parental love,
brotherly love, sibling love, maternal love,
passionate love, romantic love, familial love,
and puppy love). Also in line with past prac-
tice, an additional 5 types were chosen from
the low-frequency items to ensure that a
broad range of responses was sampled.
These additional types were selected on the
basis of two criteria: (1) they were interper-
sonal in nature (i.e., they represented a way
two people could love one another, thus ex-
cluding such types as love for one’s country,
love for one’s pet, love of work,etc.), and (2)
they were listed by more than one subject in
Phase 1.The following 5 types were chosen:
affection, committed love, sisterly love, in-
fatuation, and platonic love. Subjects ( N =
40) were asked to list the features for 10
types of love.Which 10 types were presented
varied from one subject to the next, such
that each of the 15 types of love was de-
scribed by 20 subjects. The features were
311
then coded by three judges, and a final list of
features for each type of love was derived.
(As in similar studies, any differences in
opinion among the judges were discussed
until unanimous agreement was reached;
see, for example,Fehr, 1988;Fehr & Russell,
1984; Holliday & Chandler, 1986.) For a
more detailed description of this phase, see
Fehr and Russell (1991, Study 6). Examples
of feature lists appear in Table 1.1
Phase 3: Sinzilarity ratings
Subjects. Eighty dating couples (160 sub-
jects) participated in this phase. At least one
member of each couple was a student in an
Introductory Psychology class at the Uni-
versity of Winnipeg. Students were told that
they were eligible for this study if they were
currently dating (i.e., “going out” with some-
one, but not engaged, married, or cohabit-
ing). Subjects who were students received
Subject Pool credit for their participation.
Materials. Subjects received the Views of
Love Questionnaire (along with additional
measures not relevant here) with the fol-
lowing instructions:
In a previous study, we asked people to tell us
their views of love. Specifically,they were told to,
“List the features or attributes of love.” Below
are the responses of some of the people in our
earlier study. The features or characteristics of
love are listed roughly in order of importance
(i.e., people tended to list what they thought was
most important,or central to love, first). What we
do not know from that study is how accurately
their responses reflect your view of love. Please
read each of the descriptions of love below. After
you have read each one, rate how similar that
person’s view of love is to your own view. In other
words, if you had been asked to list the features of
love, how similar is this list to the one you would
have given? Keep in mind that we are interested
in this study in what you think love is, rather than
what you think love should be.
1. Complete feature lists for all 15 prototypes are
available from the author.
312 B. Fehr

Table 1. Sample ,feature lists f o r types of love

Friendship Love Romantic Love

Feel free to talk about anything Candlelight dinners

Caring Taking walks
Helping Happiness
Honesty Caring
Doing things together Idealistic
Trust Want to be with the person all the time
Sharing Giving gifts
Understanding Dream about the person
Sharing emotions Like a fairy tale
Being there for the person Feel relaxed with the person
Good times Good times
Happiness Physical attraction
Supportive Sitting in front of a fireplace
Longlasting Sharing
Loyalty Courtship
Openness Doing things together
Sharing thoughts Don’t know the person very well
A bond Kissing
Closeness Your world revolves around the
Common interests person
Concern Honesty
Feel relaxed with the person Glowing
Listening to each other Giving
Respect Friendship
Sadness Feel free to talk about anything
Sense of belonging Problems seem to vanish
Sharing experiences Sexual
Sweaty palms
Soft music
Think about the person all the time

Note: The features are listed in order of frequency; those that were listcd with the greatest fre.
quency appear first.

The feature lists were presented simply
as descriptions of love, rather than as the
specific types of love they depicted, for the
following reasons. First, subjects might be
reluctant to endorse the description of
some types, such as infatuation or puppy
love, if they were labeled as such, even
though the feature list might be quite con-
sistent with their own view. (They might
feel compelled to give a description labeled
“committed love,” for example, a higher
rating.) Second, some of the types, if la-
beled, might seem more appropriate for
one gender. Men, for example, might resist
assigning high ratings to a description la-
beled “maternal love” even if they agreed
with the content of that feature list. Finally,
the statement that the attributes were listed
roughly in order of centrality or importance
was included because a positive correlation
is found routinely between prototypicality
and frequency of free listing (e.g., Fehr,
1988;Fehr & Russell, 1984).*
Each of the 15 descriptions of love ap-
peared on a separate sheet, followed by the
2. It could be argued that the statement that features
werc listcd roughly in order of importance could
scrvc as a demand characteristic, prompting sub-
jects to respond in linc with the previous subjects’
ratings. Thus, this statemcnt was removed from thc
instructions in anothcr study (see Fehr &
Broughton, 1994,Study 4). Similarity ratings in that
study correlated .96 and highcr with the scts of rat-
ings gathered in the present studies.
Assessment of views oflove
question “How similar is this person’s view
of love to your own view?” Broughton
(1986), in his research on personality as-
sessment, found that although subjects are
reluctant to ascribe negative traits to them-
selves, they are quite willing to admit that
they are similar to a hypothetical person
demonstrating these traits. Given that it
might be seen as more socially desirable to
endorse some of the descriptions than oth-
ers (e.g., committed love vs. puppy love), it
was hoped that subjects would respond
more honestly if the descriptions of the 15
types of love were attributed to another
person. Similarity ratings were made on a
scale ranging from (1) not at all similar to
(9) extremely similar to my view of love.3
Procedure. Subjects participated in the ex-
periment with their dating partner. They
completed the questionnaires individually
in separate rooms. Subjects were assured
that under no circumstances would their re-
sponses be shown to their partners, nor
would their partners’ responses be shown
to them. The 15 descriptions were adminis-
tered to subjects again 3 to 4 months later.
(Those whose dating relationship ‘termi-
nated after the first experimental session
were scheduled to return to the second ses-
sion alone.) These ratings were obtained
from 76 men and 77 women.
Results and Discussion
Mean similarity ratings ranged from a low
of 2.41 on the 9-point scale for the sexual
3. Ratings were made in terms of one’s vicw of love
more generally, rather than in terms of the specific
type of love depicted in a given prototype. Other-
wise, this procedure would have undermined the
earlier decision to prcscnt the feature lists without
labels (to minimize socially desirable icsponding).
Rcscarch by Sternberg and Grajck (1984) has
showcd that, dcspitc the fact that love for one’s
mother may fcel different from love for a friend or
lover, the structure of thcse different kinds of love is
rciiiarkably similar. (They described this general
factor or common core of l o w as “one of interper-
sonal communication, sharing, and support” [p.
3271.) Thus, it seemed defensible to ask subjccts to
rate dcscriptions of specific types of love in terms of
similarity to their gcneral view of love.
313
love prototype to a high of 7.89 for friend-
ship love. Thus, these prototypes of love
elicited a relatively wide range of similarity
ratings (see Table 2 for the means and
standard deviations for the 15 prototypes at
each testing session). The size of the stand-
ard deviations indicates that the variability
in similarity ratings for any given prototype
was acceptable as well. With regard to reli-
ability, there was evidence that subjects
agreed with one another in their ratings. An
intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)
computed for the Time 1 ratings was .86
(using the formula presented in Winer,
1 9 6 2 , ~128).
. For the Time 2 ratings, the ICC
was .89. Moreover, the mean ratings as-
signed to the 15 prototypes at Time 1 and
Time 2 were highly correlated, r = .97. To
determine the stability of individual sub-
ject’s ratings across the two testing sessions,
correlations between Time 1 and Time 2
ratings were computed for a subsample of
50 subjects. Obviously, the ratings for indi-
vidual subjects are more unstable than are
those based on the entire sample. However,
even these ratings showed remarkable sta-
bility; the average across the 50 test-retest
correlations was .73 ( r to 2 to Y trans-
formed).
The high degree of agreement between
raters at each testing session was especially
heartening, given that many of these dating
relationships were rather unstable. On the
other hand, it could be argued that the de-
gree of consensus in the prototype ratings
was inflated because the subjects were in-
volved in a close relationship with one an-
other. Given long-standing evidence that
partners choose one another on the basis of
similarity (e.g., Brehm, 1985), a sample of
dating couples might show greater agree-
ment in their views of love than would sub-
jects who are not one another’s relationship
partners. To examine this possibility, for
each of the 80 couples, the male and female
partner’s ratings of the 15 prototypes of
love were correlated. These correlations
ranged from .13 to .90, with an average of
.63 ( r to 2 to r transformed). (The average
correlation at Time 2 was very similar, aver-
314 B. Fehr

Table 2. Mean ratings f o r 15 prototypes of love

Study 1 Study 1 Study 2 Study 2 Study 2

Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 1" Time 2

TypeofLove Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

~

Friendship 7.89 1.20 7.53 1.38 7.31 1.37 7.49 1.17 7.04 1.37
Maternal 7.24 1.59 6.71 1.83 6.89 1.75 6.90 1.69 6.55 1.74
Sisterly 6.77 1.57 6.84 1.61 6.48 1.75 6.31 1.87 6.73 1.76
Parental 6.33 1.92 6.37 1.79 6.31 1.88 6.43 1.72 6.31 1.87
Familial 6.37 1.78 6.80 1.55 6.28 1.73 6.06 1.85 6.51 1.57
Brotherly 6.63 1.64 5.98 1.70 6.06 1.82 5.96 1.87 5.59 1.69
Committed 6.07 2.18 6.24 2.10 5.69 2.22 5.71 2.22 5.78 1.77
Affection 5.91 1.76 5.90 1.67 5.20 1.93 5.43 1.71 5.37 1.70
Platonic 5.22 2.00 5.51 1.95 5.15 2.16 5.61 2.14 5.29 1.83
Romantic 5.64 2.08 5.25 2.21 4.90 2.06 5.27 1.86 5.20 1.95
Sibling 4.88 1.85 5.74 1.77 4.74 1.87 4.92 1.78 5.55 1.36
Passionate 4.28 2.04 4.10 2.05 3.72 2.09 3.75 1.87 3.78 1.69
Infatuation 2.67 1.85 2.43 1.53 2.52 1.83 2.22 1.40 2.65 1.52
PUPPY 2.37 1.59 2.52 1.56 2.51 1.70 2.39 1.58 2.63 1.55
Sexual 2.41 1.83 2.56 1.52 2.43 1.83 2.24 1.63 2.75 1.47
N= 160 N = 153 N = 227 N=51 N=51

"Based on only subjects who also complctcd the ratings at Time 2 ( N = 51).

age r = h5.) Thus, overall, there was a mod-
erate level of intracouple agreement.
It is not possible to establish the internal
consistency of the ratings for individual
prototypes through standard procedures
(e.g., alpha coefficients), given that they are
single-item measures. However, in recent
research (Fehr, 1994), subjects have been
asked to rate the features of each individual
prototype, rather than provide a single rat-
ing for the entire feature list. Alpha coeffi-
cients based on these ratings range from .70
to .89 (alpha = .89 for 5 prototypes; alphas
exceeded .80 for 11 of the 15 prototypes),
thereby demonstrating satisfactory internal
consistency. The single-item format seemed
preferable for early investigations, how-
ever, because it then was possible to gather
ratings of a large number of types of love
from the same subjects on more than one
occasion.
To summarize, the 15 prototypes of love
elicited different ratings. Subjects agreed
with one another, suggesting that they
found this a meaningful task. Moreover,
ratings of the 15 prototypes were stable
over time. All in all, indications that this
prototype-based strategy could be used for
assessing views of a wide range of love con-
cepts were encouraging.
Study 2. Ratings of Love Prototypes:
A Non-Couple Sample
In the previous study, subjects were dating
couples who displayed substantial agree-
ment in their views of love. However, it was
questionable whether adequate interrater
agreement would obtain if subjects were
not relationship partners. Thus, in this study,
the Views of Love questionnaire was ad-
ministered to a new group of respondents
who were not dating one another. In addi-
tion, a longer time interval between the first
and second testing sessions was introduced
as an even more stringent test of the reli-
ability of the prototype ratings.
Method
Subjects
Subjects were students ( N = 227: 111 men
and 114 women; 2 subjects did not indicate
gender) enrolled in various psychology
Assessment of views of love
classes at the University of Winnipeg. Al-
most half of the subjects (n = 104) were
solicited from summer session courses to
ensure that a wider range of age and expe-
rience would be represented. These stu-
dents volunteered their participation. The
remaining students ( n = 123) completed
the questionnaires in the fall in their Intro-
ductory Psychology class and received Sub-
ject Pool credit for their participation. The
mean age for the entire sample was 24
years, with a range of 17 to 70 years.
Procedure
The summer students were invited to par-
ticipate in what was described as a series of
ongoing experiments in the University’s
Psychology Department. They were given,
in random order, the Revised Interpersonal
Adjective Scales (IAS-R) (Wiggins, Trap-
nell, & Phillips, 1988;see Fehr & Broughton,
1994, Study 2) and the Views of Love ques-
tionnaire from Study 1 (along with an unre-
lated measure, rating photographed facial
expressions, to give the impression that all of
the tasks administered in the experimental
session were independent). The regular ses-
sion Introductory Psychology students com-
pleted the measures in class. They were
given the scales on separate days,early in the
term when they were completing a variety of
standard scales (for inclusion in their Sub-
ject Pool file). The Views of Love question-
naire was completed again by 51 Introduc-
tory Psychology students approximately 6
months later.
Results and Discussion
The mean ratings (and standard deviations)
for the 15 prototypes at each testing session
appear in Table 2. The range of ratings and
their variability werc comparable to those
found in Study 1.The sexual love prototype
again received the lowest similarity ratings,
while the friendship love prototype re-
ceived the highest ratings. Intermediate rat-
ings were assigned to types of love such as
affection, romantic, and committed love.
Thus, the pattern of the prototype ratings
315
obtained in Study 1generalized to a sample
of individuals who were not in close rela-
tionships with one another. Intraclass cor-
relation coefficients were computed to as-
sess the extent to which subjects who were
not dating one another would agree in their
ratings. These values remained high: .83 for
the first testing session and .83 for the sec-
ond session ( N = 51). A further comparison
with the Study 1 dating sample was made
by creating a set of 80 couples (i.e., the same
number as in Study l),randomly pairing 80
female with 80 male subjects. As in Study 1,
for each impromptu pair, a correlation was
computed between the male and the female
partner’s ratings. The average of these 80
correlations was .57 ( r to 2 to r trans-
formed), which is lower than that found in
Study 1 ( r = .63), although still moderate.
Thus, the level of agreement found in the
dating sample may mostly reflect cultural
(or at least university student) consensus
about the meaning of love, rather than
agreement unique to relationship partners.
Even though a half year had elapsed
since the first testing session, the mean rat-
ings of the 15 prototypes at each session
were highly correlated, r = .98. When test-
retest correlations were computed indi-
vidually for each of the 51 subjects who had
completed ratings at both testing sessions,
1
the average of th se correlations was -70,
which is comparab e to the level of stability
that was observed in Study 1.
Study 3. Face Validity of the
Prototypes of Love
The ratings of the 15 prototypes of love in
Studies 1 and 2 demonstrated satisfactory
psychometric properties; they elicited an ap-
propriate range of similarity ratings, and
these ratings were stable over time. How-
ever, the validity of this measure remains to
be demonstrated. Study 3 focused on face
validity. Given that this measure is based on
laypeople’s views, it was particularly impor-
tant that the feature lists did, in fact, portray
to the respondents the view of love that was
purportedly being measured. Thus, subjects
316 B.Fehr

in this study were asked to match the feature words, the pattern of incorrect responses
lists with their labels. One would not expect should not be random. To test this empiri-
perfect agreement, given increasing evi- cally, first a matrix containing the propor-
dence that love is not a classically defined tion of features each prototype shared with
concept, but rather possesses the properties all of the other prototypes was constructed.
of prototype concepts (e.g., Aron & West- The diagonal of this matrix consisted of 1s
bay, 1991; Buss, 1988; Fehr, 1988; Fehr & (i.e., each prototype shares all of its features
Russell, 1984,1991;Fitness & Fletcher, 1993; with itself). Next, a matrix of subjects’ ac-
Shaver, Schwartz, Kirson, & O’Connor, tual choices was constructed (Table 3). The
1987;see Fehr, 1993, for a review). In other proportion of subjects who chose the cor-
words, the concept of love has blurry rect target prototype appeared along the
boundaries, and the features of one type of diagonal. The remaining entries were the
love overlap with the features of other types. confusions (i.e., the proportion of subjects
However, subjects should still be able to who chose each of the 14 non-target labels
identify the prototype from its features. Fur- for each prototype). If subjects’ choices,
ther, any errors in identification should be were, in fact, driven by the “correct” labels,
predictable and orderly (e.g., mistaking one one would expect a high degree of corre-
kind of familial love for another because of spondence between these two matrices.
their overlapping features), not random. To This result was obtained, r = .79,p < .001. A
test this idea, a confusion matrix (e.g.,Camp- subsequent analysis focused only on the
bell & Clark, 1988) was constructed in which subjects’ incorrect responses in order to de-
subjects’ pattern of choices was compared to termine the extent to which confusions
a matrix of the proportion of overlapping were attributable to feature overlap. One
features among the prototypes. would expect that this correlation would be
substantial, if predictable confusions are
Method
made, but lower than in the previous case
Subjects (because correct responses, i.e., the diago-
nals, are not included). The resultant r of .52
Thirty-nine students (21 women and 18
indicates that, as predicted, false positives
men) in a second-year psychology class par-
were likely to occur to the extent that the
ticipated in this study. Their mean age was
target prototype shared features with the
21.68 years, with a range of 19 to 30 years.
(incorrectly) chosen prototype.
In conclusion, there is evidence that these
Procedure prototypes of love possess face validity. Sub-
Subjects received the 15 prototypes of love jects were able to determine which kind of
and a list of 15 labels corresponding to the love was being depicted from the feature
types of love. They were asked to think lists; in each case, the modal response was
about what kind of love was depicted in the correct label. Moreover, any errors that
each feature list and then to choose the did occur were predictable from a prototype
appropriate label. perspective. Thus, despite the fact that many
of the prototypes shared features with one
Results and Discussion another, subjects still were able to identify
The correct label was the modal choice for with considerable success the kind of Iove
all 15 prototypes (see Table 3). As men- depicted in each prototype.
tioned earlier, the target type of love should
Study 4. Convergent and Discriminant
be the modal response, and any confusions
Validity of the Prototype Measures
between the target and other kinds of love
should result from shared features between This study examined the extent to which the
the target and other prototypes. In other prototypes of love map onto existing meas-
 Table 3. Subjects’ choice of labels for 15prototypes of love

Aff. Bro. Com. Fam. Frnd. Infat. Mat. Par. Pass. Plat. Pup. Rom. Sex. Sib. Sis.
Affection 56.41 0 0 2.56 0 0 10.26 10.26 0 15.38 0 0 0 0 5.13
Brotherly 5.13 43.59 2.56 10.26 2.56 0 5.13 2.56 0 17.95 0 0 0 7.69 2.56
Committed 0 0 87.18 0 2.56 0 7.69 0 2.56 0 0 0 0 0 0
Familial 2.63 13.16 5.26 36.84 5.26 0 0 2.63 5.26 5.26 0 0 0 23.68 0
Friendship 7.89 7.89 0 2.63 60.53 0 0 2.63 0 0 0 0 0 2.63 15.79
5 Infatuation 5.13 0 0 0 0 84.62 0 0 2.56 2.56 2.56 2.56 0 0 0
Maternal 5.26 5.26 2.63 7.89 0 0 39.47 10.53 0 5.26 0 2.63 2.63 10.53 7.89
Parental 2.70 2.70 8.11 0 0 0 27.03 56.76 0 0 0 0 0 2.70 0
Passionate 0 0 0 0 0 5.13 0 0 79.49 2.56 2.56 2.56 7.69 0 0
Platonic 5.13 10.26 2.56 5.13 23.08 0 2.56 2.56 0 38.46 0 0 0 7.69 2.56
PUPPY 0 0 0 0 2.63 5.26 0 0 0 0 92.11 0 0 0 0
Romantic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.56 2.56 2.56 0 92.31 0 0 0
Sexual 0 0 2.56 0 0 2.56 0 0 2.56 0 2.56 0 89.74 0 0
Sibling 5.26 18.42 0 18.42 0 0 2.63 13.16 0 0 0 0 0 39.47 2.63
Sisterly 2.56 5.13 0 5.13 10.26 2.56 2.56 0 0 5.13 0 0 0 2.56 64.10
Note: Numbers represent 96 subjects choosing each target ( N = 39).
318
ures of love. Would there be any relation
between experts’ scales of romantic love, for
example, and a scale based on the layper-
son’s prototype of romantic love? Would
other prototypes of love relate to existing
measures in a meaningful way? For exam-
ple, laypeople’s prototypes of infatuation or
passionate love should be more closely re-
lated to measures of romantic love than
their prototypes of platonic or brotherly
love. Stated differently, this study explored
where the prototype measures fit in the no-
mological net of existing measures of 10ve.4
It was hoped that there would be sufficient
correspondence between the prototype
measures and experts’ scales so that the pat-
tern of relations between them could be ex-
amined to evaluate convergent and dis-
criminant validity. Unfortunately, little, if
any, effort has been expended to determine
the extent to which the conceptions of love
underlying the experts’ scales map onto
their respondents’ conceptions.This is not to
say that they should or must (see Fehr &
Russell, 1991, for a discussion of this issue).
However, the assumption implicit in roman-
tic love scalcs, for example, is that what the
investigator is measuring corresponds with
the notion of romantic love in the mind of
the research participant.The extent to which
laypeople’s conceptions of love correspond
4. Given that the purpose of this research was to de-
velop a mcthodology for assessing views of love, I
dccidcd to incliidc only scales that specifically pur-
ported to incastire love, rather than the nature or
quality of intimate rclatioiiships.Tlitis, scalcssuch as
the Relationship Rating Form (Davis & Todd,1985)
and attachmcnt style scales (c.g., Collins & Read,
1990; Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Simpson, 1990),which
arc corrclatcd with love scales, but were not explic-
itly dcvclopcd to nicasurc love, were not included in
this initial invcstigation. It should also be pointed
out that Sternbcrg’s love scales wercstill in the proc-
ess of development when these data wcrc gathered.
Howcvcr, thc large number of publishcd scales
available at thc time of thc study seemed sufficient
to establish discriminant and convergent validity.
The relation bctwccn the love prototypes and nicas-
tires such as those of Davis and of Stcrnbcrg and the
nicasurcs of attachmcnt style will be cxplorcd in fu-
turc rcsearch.
B. Fehr
with experts’ constructions is an empirical
question that can and should be answered.
To explicate the relations between the
prototype and extant measures as fully as
possible, a large number of love scales was
included. It was not expected that many of
the correlations would exceed .3 in magni-
tude, given that the prototype measures
share little method variance with standard
love scales and that any correlations with
single-item measures would be attenuated.
The important question was whether the
obtained pattern of relations would make
conceptual sense. Thus, this study was de-
signed to assess convergent and discrimi-
nant validity of the prototype measures, as
well as to shed light on the issue of lay
versus experts’ conceptions of love.
Method
Subjects
Subjects were 357 (98 men and 252 women;
7 subjects did not indicate their gender) In-
troductory Psychology students who par-
ticipated in this study for Subject Pool
credit. They ranged in age from 17 to 52
years, with a mean of 20.26 years.
Materials
Subjects were given a variety of love scales.
These included:
1. Hobart’s (1958) Attitudes Toward Ro-
manticism scale. This is a 12-item meas-
ure of the extent to which one endorses
romantic beliefs such as “To be truly in
love is to be in love forever.”
2. Fengler’s (1974) Romantic Idealist Fac-
tor. This 6-item scale contains items
such as “A deep love for one another
can compensate for differences in relig-
ious and economic background.”
3 . Spaulding’s (1970) Romantic Love
Complex. Romantic beliefs are meas-
ured in this scale (e.g., “True love is
known at once by the people in-
volved”). Of the 11 items, 4 overlap
with Hobart’s scale.
Assessment of views of love
4. Munro and Adams’s (1978) Attitudes
Toward Love scale. This 26-item scale is
comprised of three subscales: Roman-
tic Power (9 items; e.g., “True love
never dies; it surmounts all obstacles”),
Romantic Idealist (9 items; e.g., “Many
years of being in love deepens rather
than exhausts the sense of pleasure that
the partners feel for each other”), and
Conjugal-Rational (8 items; e.g.,
“Good companionship is more impor-
tant than romantic love in making a
good marriage”).
5. Knox and Sporakowski’s (1968) Atti-
tudes Toward Love scale. This 29-item
scale assesses the extent to which one
endorses a romantic (vs. a conjugal)
view of love. Agreement with items
such as “Love at first sight is often the
deepest and most enduring type of
love” indicates a romantic view of love;
disagreement suggests a conjugal view.
6. Sprecher and Metts’s (1989) Romantic
Beliefs scale. This 15-item scale meas-
ures the extent to which one endorses
romantic beliefs such as “The relation-
ship I will have with my ‘true love’ will
be nearly perfect.” Some items for this
scale were borrowed or adapted from
scales such as Hobart’s and Spaulding’s.
A factor analysis of the items revealed
four underlying factors. The total scale
score was used here.
7. Dion and Dion’s Romantic Love ques-
tionnaire (e.g.,Dion & Dion, 198S).The
16-item Attitudes toward Romantic
Love scale in this questionnaire was in-
cluded here. Dion and Dion typically
factor-analyze these items and use the
resultant factors in their research (K.L.
Dion, personal communication, 1993).
Items include “True love is mysterious
and cannot be explained by reason. It
can be felt, not explained.”
8. Hendrick and Hendrick’s (1986) Love
Attitudes scale. This 42-item scale
measures six different love styles:
Storge (friendship-based love), Eros
319
(romantic, passionate love), Agape (al-
truistic love), Ludus (game-playing
love), Pragma (practical love), and Ma-
nia (dependent, obsessive love). Each
style is measured by 7 items.
9. Rubin’s (1970) Love and Liking scales.
The 9-item version of each scale was
used.
10. Hatfield and Sprecher’s (1986) Pas-
sionate Love scale. This scale focuses
on the passionate experience of love
(e.g., “I sense my body responding
when touches me”). The
short version (15 items) was used.
11. Kanin et al.3 (1970) Love Reactions
measure. This measure consists of 8 in-
tense, passionate love reactions or ex-
periences (e.g., “floating on a cloud”;
“want to run, jump, scream”).
12. The Views of Love questionnaire, in
which subjects rate how similar 15 pro-
totypes of love are to their own view of
love.
Thus, a total of 22 scales (or subscales)
was included along with the 15 prototypes.
For the standard love scales, subjects indi-
cated their responses on a 7-point scale,
with 7 indicating agreement with or en-
dorsement of the item. The 9-item scale for-
mat (9 = extremely similar to m y view of
love) was retained for the prototype ratings.
Results and Discussion
A table of correlations between the 22 love
scales and each of the 15 love prototypes
would present a rather overwhelming inter-
pretive task. Thus, the love scales were fac-
tor-analyzed to elucidate the relations
among them and the prototype measures
more manageably. The results of the factor
analysis will be presented first, followed by a
discussion of the relation between the love
scale factors and the prototype measures.
The specific question raised earlier-
namely, which experts’ scales of roman-
tic/passionate love are closest to layperson’s
320 B. Fehr

Table 4. Factor analysis of Dion and Dion’s Attitudes toward Romantic Love scale
Item Factor Loading
Factor 1:Idealistic view
14. True love lasts forever. -78
2. There is only one real love for a person. .64
4. True love leads to almost perfect happiness. .64
Factor 2: Cynical view
6. Romantic love is an o u t m o d e d a n d unrealistic concept. .71
3. There’s no room in m o d e r n marriages for t h e old idea of romance. .67
Factor 3: Romantic experience
10. True love is mysterious a n d cannot be explained by reason. It can b e felt, not .66
explained.
11. W h e n one is i n love, h e or s h e lives almost entirely for t h e o t h e r person. .63
Factor 4: Pragmatic view
7. People marry as often for things like money, status, a n d social considerations
as they d o for love. .75
8. Conflict can be a real part of love. .73

conceptions of these kinds of love-was ad-
dressed by examining the simple correla-
tions between the individual love scales and
the prototype ratings.
Factor analysis of the love scales
First, a factor analysis of Dion and Dion’s
Attitudes toward Romantic Love scale was
conducted (see Table 4).5 The resultant four
factors were then included with the remain-
ing 21 love scales in a principal components
analysis with varimax rotation. The number
of factors retained was based on the results
of Longman, Cota, Holden, and Fekken’s
(1989) parallel analysis. Four factors, ac-
counting for 28.0,11.8,9.0, and 7.0% of the
variance, respectively, were retained. Total
variance accounted for was 55.8%. The .60-
.40 criterion for item (scale) retention was
applied (i.e., an item must have a primary
loading of at least .60 and not load above
.40 on any other factors) (McCroskey &
Young, 1979). This rule resulted in a clean

5. First it was necessary to pcrform a factor analysis of
Dion and Dion’s Attitudcs toward Romantic LOVC
scale (K. L. Dion, pcrsonal communication). The 16
items were subjected to a principal components
analysis with varimax rotation. The number of fac-
tors chosen was bascd on Longman et al.’s (1989)
proceduic. Esscntially, this procedurc dcterinines
the eigcnvalties that would obtain if thc data wcrc
random. One then retains those factors for which
thc cigenvalues excccd thosc dcrived from random
data. Bascd on this criterion, four of thc fivc factors
wcrc rctained (see Tablc 4). The percent variancc
adcountcd for by each of the factors was 18.9,11.3,
9.2, and 7.8, respectivcly. The total variance ac-
counted for was 47.3%. In determining which items
to rctain for cach factor, the .60-.40 criterion was
uscd: Thc item must load at least .60 on its own
factor and not above .40 on the othcr factors
(McCroskey & Young, 1979). This procedure re-
sultcd in the cleanest solution, given that thosc
itcms which loaded less than .60 on a factor tended
to have high loadings on other factors. Based on this
criterion, two items were discarded from Factor 1-
itcm 13 (prcvious love affair may have been real love;
- .47 loading on own factor and .40 on Factor 3) and
item 5 (doubt may enter real love; -.43 on own factor
and .33 on Factor 4). Item 1was dropped from Factor
2 (true love is known at once; .49 loading on own
factor and .35 on Factor 3). Itcm 12 was dropped from
Factor 3 (Iovc constrains one’s independence; .53 on
own factor and .44 on Factor 2). No items wcrc
dropped from Factor 4. Results wcrc quite similar to
the Idealistic (Factor l), Cynical (Factor 2), and Prag-
matic (Factor 4) factors found by Dion and Dion
(1973). The major differencc was that in this analysis,
two of the Idcalistic items formed a separate factor;
Item 10 refers to the affective experience of romantic
love (mysterious and inexplicable), whereas item 11
speaks of living almost entirely for thc other person
when in lovc. This factor was labeled Romantic Expc-
rience because it sccmed to tap thc experiential as-
pect of romantic love.
Assessment of views of love
Table 5. Factor analysis of love scales
Love Scale
Factor 1:Romantic beliefs
Romantic Love Complex (Spaulding, 1970)
Romantic Beliefs scale (Sprecher & Metts, 1989)
Attitudes Toward Love scale (Knox & Sporakowski, 1968)
Idealistic View factor (Dion & Dion; see fn. 5)
Romantic Power subscale (Munro & Adams, 1978)
Romantic Experience factor (Dion & Dion; see fn. 5)
Factor 2: Companionate love
Liking scale (Rubin, 1970)
Love scale (Rubin, 1970)
Ludus love style (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986)
Factor 3: Experience of passionate love
Mania love style (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986)
Love Reactions (Kanin, Davidson, & Scheck, 1970)
Passionate Love scale (Hatfield & Sprecher, 1986)
Factor 4:Pragmatic love
Pragma love style (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986)
Romantic Idealist Factor (Fengler, 1974)
set of factors, given that scales which loaded
below .60 on a factor tended to load sub-
stantially on other factors. Most of the items
(scales) met the inclusion criteria-only
one item was dropped from Factors 1and 4,
two from Factor 2, and none from Factor 3.6
The scales that loaded on each factor ap-
pear in Table 5.
6. The rule adopted for item (scale) inclusion was a pri-
mary loading of .60 or higher on its own factor and
.40 or lower on another factor. The item that was
dropped from Factor 1(Romantic Bclicfs) was Ho-
bart’s (1958) Romanticism scale. It loaded .60 on its
own factor, but -.46 on Factor 4 (Pragmatic Love).
The Eros lovc style subscale was droppcd from Fac-
tor 2 (Companionate Love) bccausc it loaded .53 on
that factor and .44 on Factor 3 (Passionate Experi-
ence). However, given the iniportance of this scale
in the love literature, simplc correlations between
Eros and the related love prototypes are reported in
the General Discussion section. The Agapc love
style subscale was excluded as well because its load-
ing of .56 did not meet the .60 criterion. Simple cor-
relations rcvcalcd that this lovc style was most
highly correlated with the committed love proto-
type ( r = .27),followed by the maternal ( r = .25),pa-
rental ( r = .21), and brotherly love ( r = .20) proto-
types. No items (scales) were dropped from Factor 3.
Onc item was dropped from Factor 4: Dion and
Dion’s Cynicism factor-it loaded .40 on its own
factor and -.30 on Factor 2 (Companionate Love).
321
Factor Loading
.81
.80
.78
.76
.70
.63
.7 1
.67
- .66
.73
.68
.66
.81
- .78
Factor 1 was labeled Romantic Beliefs
because measures of romantic beliefs pre-
dominantly loaded on this factor. Items
from these scales include: “True love is
known at once by the people involved,”
“Love at first sight is often the deepest and
most enduring type of love,” “True love
never dies; it surmounts all obstacles,” “True
love leads to almost perfect happiness,” and
“There is only one real love for a person.”
Factor 2-which consists of Rubin’s
Love and Liking scales, along with the
Ludus love style (loaded negatively)-was
labeled Companionate Love. Hatfield and
Walster (1978) defined companionate love
as “a lower-key emotion. It’s friendly affec-
tion and deep attachment to someone”
(p. 2). Similarly, Brehm (1985) listed re-
spect, admiration, and trust as the major
components of companionate love and de-
scribed it as a stable, secure kind of love in
which the accompanying emotions are calm
and steady. These conceptualizations seem
consistent with Rubin’s Love scale, which
measures the extent of one’s feelings of car-
ing, intimacy, and needlattachment toward
one’s romantic partner (Rubin, 1973). The
Liking scale focuses on feelings of admira-
tion and respect for one’s partner, which
322
are also a part of companionate love. In
fact, the Liking scale has been described as
a measure of companionate love (e.g.,
Brehm, 1985; Hatfield, 1982). The Ludus
love style subscale, which loaded negatively,
contrasts sharply with the depiction of com-
panionate love. Items on this scale refer to
juggling more than one lover simultane-
ously, resisting a partner’s attempts to se-
cure a commitment, and so on.
Factor 3 captures the experience of pas-
sionate love. Passionate love is usually con-
ceptualized as intense, romantic, highly
sexualized, emotionally volatile, and vul-
nerable to disruption (e.g., Brehm, 1985).
This experience is depicted in the Mania
love style subscale (e.g., “Sometimes I get
so excited about being in love that I can’t
sleep”). Kanin e t a1.k (1970) and Hatfield
and Sprecher’s (1986) scales were designed
specifically to measure passionate love ex-
periences. Both loaded on this factor.
Factor 4 included the Pragma love style
subscale and the Fengler Romantic Idealist
Factor. The Pragma love style subscale pre-
sents a view of love in which pragmatic,
practical concerns are paramount, leaving
little room for passionate, “head in the
clouds” emotions (e.g., “A main considera-
tion in choosing a lover is how he/she re-
flects on my family”). The Romantic Ideal-
ist factor, which advocates marrying only on
the basis of love and not being concerned
with the person’s social or economic back-
ground, loaded negatively on this factor.
Hence, this factor reflects a pragmatic view
of lovc.
Relation between love scale factors and the
p rototype M ensures
Correlations between love scale factor
scores, and ratings of the prototypes of love
appear in Table 6. Findings for each factor
will be discussed in turn.
Romantic beliefs. It was anticipated that the
Romantic Beliefs factor would be most
closely related to the romantic love and re-
lated prototypes (e.g., passionate love, in-
B. Fehr
fatuation). In fact, the highest correlation
was found with the romantic prototype,
followed by weaker, positive correlations
with the passionate, infatuation, and puppy
love prototypes. Also as expected, scores
on this factor were not correlated with the
various kinds of family love. Scores on the
Romantic Beliefs factor were, however,
correlated with ratings of the committed
love prototype. This result was not unex-
pected, given that high correlations (in the
.7Os-.8Os) typically are found between
measures of commitment to relationships
and love scales (e.g., Hatfield & Sprecher,
1986; Lund, 1985).
Companionate love. Scales on the Compan-
ionate Love factor present a view of love as
steady, comfortable, pleasant, and not too
intense. Thus, positive correlations were ex-
pected with the familial kinds of love and
friendship love prototype. In fact, familial,
maternal, sisterly, brotherly, and parental
love were correlated with this factor, as was
the friendship love prototype (allps < .OOl).
A significant correlation was also predicted
(and found) with the committed love proto-
type, given evidence that the concept of
commitment overlaps considerably with
companionate love (Fehr, 1988; Kelley,
1983). Further, Lund (1985) obtained high
correlations between her measure of com-
mitment and Rubin’s Love scale, which was
included in this factor. It was also expected
that prototypes depicting passionate love
(passionate love, infatuation, puppy love)
would be unrelated or even negatively cor-
related with scores on the Companionate
Love factor. The results were consistent with
these predictions. For example, the infatu-
ation and puppy love prototypes, for which
negative correlations were obtained, were
characterized by features, such as “not
longlasting,” “initially strong but then
fades,” and “based on first impressions,”
which are antithetical to the enduring,stead-
fast nature of companionate love.
Passionate experience. It was predicted that
the passionate love and related prototypes
Table 6. Correlations between 15prototypes of love and love scale factors
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
Romantic Beliefs Companionate Love Passionate Experience Pragmatic Love

Type of Love All Men Women All Men Women All Men Women All Men Women

Friendship .04 .10 .01 .21*** .24** .19** .lo* .15f .04 - .03 .06 -.07
Maternal .09f .21* .03 .26*** .41*** .23*** .15** .24* .11* - .03 -.16f .02
Sisterly - .06 - .04 - .05 .18*** .39*** .ost .04 .06 .02 - .07f -.19* -.01
Parental .07 .03 .08t .20*** .26*** .18** .09f .10 .08 .lo* .05 .14*
Familial .02 03 .02 .18*** .32** .14* .ost .25** .01 -.lo* -.12 -.09t
Brotherly .01 -.02 .01 .19*** .17* .20** .03 .08 - .01 .02 -.06 .05
Committed .21*** .23* .19** .29*** .32** .28*** .27*** .29** .26*** .oo -.02 .02
Affection .04 .14f - .oo .03 .09 .01 - .01 .17* -.11* .lo* .07 .11*
Platonic .06 - .05 .11* .07t .11 .05 - .07 .02 -.13* .16*** .13 .18**
Romantic .34*** .31*** .34*** .lo* .15t .lot .29*** .41*** .28*** - .03 -.02 -.02
Sibling .03 - .01 .03 .07 - .03 .11* .06 .14f .04 .13*** .22* .11*
Passionate .15** .11 .15** - .01 - .oo - .oo .12* .21* .12* - .07t .21* -.17**
Infatuation .18*** .20* .17** -.17** -.12 -.19** .14** .28** .lot .07 .16t .03
PUPPY .19*** .20* .19** -.20*** -.18* -.19** .07f .25** .03 .09* .19* .05
Sexual .09f .07 .09t - .07 - .08 -.06 .06 21 .04 .09* .19* .05
N=345 N=97 N=248
t p < .lo. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < ,001.
324
(e.g., romantic love, infatuation) would cor-
relate most highly with the Passionate Ex-
perience factor. Scores on the passionate
love prototype were positively correlated
with this factor, although surpassed by the
correlation with the romantic love proto-
type. Hatfield and Sprecher’s (1986) high
correlations between a measure of commit-
ment and their Passionate Love scale ( r =
.87 for men; .73 for women) suggested that
a significant correlation might be found be-
tween Passionate Experience (which in-
cluded their Passionate Love scale) and the
committed love prototype. This hypothesis
was supported. The more companionate-
like familial and friendship prototypes were
not expected to correlate with Passionate
Experience, The results were largely consis-
tent with predictions, except for an unan-
ticipated positive correlation between Pas-
sionate Experience and the maternal love
prototype, particularly for men. There is no
obvious explanation for this finding (al-
though one could imagine a Freudian inter-
pretation). Features in the maternal love
prototype such as “hugging, kissing, touch-
ing” may have triggered this association.
Pragnzatic love. Finally, it was expected that
correlations with the Pragmatic Love factor
would be weak, but positive, for family love
prototypes, which included features that
downplay the expression of emotion and
take a rather practical approach to relation-
ships. The parental love prototype, with fea-
tures such as “obligation, discipline, and
teaching,” as well as the sibling love proto-
type where a dominant theme was not show-
ing one’s feelings, would be included here.
Results supported these predictions. The
highest correlation was with the platonic
love prototype, which depicted a very low
key, nonintense kind of love with features
such as “feel relaxed with the person” and
“normal behavior.” Similarly, a weak, posi-
tive relation was found with the affection
prototype, which captured feelings of fond-
ness that were neither intense nor sexual.
Both platonic love and affection seem con-
B. Fehr
sistent with the down-to-earth,nonromantic
orientation to love portrayed by this factor.
Thus, a meaningful pattern of correla-
tions emerged between the prototype
measures and the love scale factors, sug-
gesting that the prototype measures possess
both convergent and discriminant validity.
The magnitude of these correlations is, of
course, attenuated because the prototype
scales were single-item measures. As one
would expect, the size increases when the
correlations are corrected for attenuation.
To give some examples, for the Romantic
Beliefs factor, the correlations of .34, .15,
and .18 with the romantic, passionate, and
infatuation prototypes respectively, in-
crease to .48, .23, and .33, respectively, when
corrected for attenuation. For the Compan-
ionate Love factor, the correlations of .26,
.29, and .21 with the maternal, committed,
and friendship love factors increase to .52,
.51, and .45, respectively.
Relation between experts’ and lay
conceptions of romanticlpassionate love
As mentioned earlier, most love scales fo-
cus on romantic love, including the six Hen-
drick and Hendrick (1986,1989) love styles.
Do laypeople’s views of romantic/passion-
ate love correspond with those presented
by the experts in these scales? The answer
is a qualified yes. All of the scales purport-
ing to measure romantic love (or some as-
pect of it, e.g., beliefs) were positively cor-
related with the romantic love prototype,
although to varying degrees. The highest
correlation was obtained with Knox and
Sporakowski’s (1968) Attitudes Toward
Love scale, r = .36,p < .001(.33 for men; .36
for women). This scale contains statements
such as, “When you fall head-over-heels-in-
love, it’s sure to be the real thing”; “Love at
first sight is often the deepest and most en-
during kind of love”; and “Love is best de-
scribed as an exciting thing rather than a
calm thing.” The next highest correlations
were with two Hendrick and Hendrick love
styles: Eros, I = .26,p < ,001 (.34 for men;
.24 for women) and Mania, r = .28,p < .001
Assessment of views of love
(-28 for men; .27 for women). Sprecher and
Metts’s (1989) Romantic Beliefs scale cor-
related similarly, r = .23,p < .001 (.18 for
men; .24 for women), as did Dion and
Dion’s Romantic Experience factor, r = .21,
p < .001 (.22 for men; .20 for women). Fi-
nally, the Passionate Love scale (Hatfield &
Sprecher, 1986) was related to the romantic
love prototype, particularly for men, r = .21,
p < .OO1 (.38 for men; .18 for women).
Some measures that might be expected
to correlate significantly with the romantic
love prototype did not. For example,
Fengler’s (1974) Romantic Idealist Factor
was virtually unrelated to the lay concep-
tion of romantic love ( r = .05). When one
examines the content of this scale, four of
the items focus on one’s willingness to
marry someone of a different race, back-
ground, social class, etc. Another item refers
to not caring whether one gets married. The
remaining item (reverse-scored) states that
the main function of the family is to edu-
cate and protect its children. These state-
ments seem quite far removed from the
layperson’s view of romantic love.
For the passionate love prototype, the
strongest associations were with the Eros,
r = .23, p < .001 (.30 for men; -22 for
women), and Mania, r = .14,p < .001 (.20
for men; .ll for women) love styles, espe-
cially for men. The highest correlation was
a negative one with the Conjugal-Rational
subscale of Munro and Adams’s (1978) At-
titudes Toward Love scale, r = -.24, p <
.001 (--15 for men; -.27 for women). This
subscale contains items that are antithetical
to the passionate love prototype (e.g.,
“Love is feeling warm, close and involved,
but not necessarily sexually excited”;
“Erotic and romantic feelings toward an-
other are poor signs toward indicating a
long and stable love relationship”; “It is
more important to feel calm and relaxed
with the one you love, rather than excited
and romantic”). Ratings of the passionate
love prototype were also negatively corre-
lated (for women) with the Storge love
style, r = -.16,p < .001 (.01 for men; -.18
for women).
325
These correlations highlight which of the
experts’ constructions of love show the
greatest amount of overlap with lay con-
ceptions. As acknowledged earlier, these
correlations were attenuated because of
factors such as item length. However, some
interesting findings emerged. For example,
in terms of the layperson’s conception, the
Eros love style subscale is correctly de-
scribed as a measure of romanridpassionate
love. Some of the highest correlations were
found between this love style scale and
both the romantic and passionate love pro-
totypes. The Mania love style, which depicts
“symptoms” of intense love experiences,
also overlaps with these two prototypes. In
terms of the romantic love prototype per se,
Knox and Sporakowski’s (1968) Attitudes
Toward Love scale is most closely related
to the layperson’s conception. With regard
to the passionate love prototype, Munro
and Adams (1978) come closest by captur-
ing the opposite of what laypeople mean by
passionate love in their Conjugal-Rational
scale.
General Discussion
Prototype measures
Prototype-based measures of love hold con-
siderable promise for assessing people’s
views of love. As reported in Studies 1and 2,
subjects exhibited high levels of agreement
in their ratings of the 15 prototypes a t each
testing session and across sessions. This
level of agreement was also evident in Study
4 (ICC = .78) and reached .84 in another set
of prototype ratings collected by Fehr and
Broughton (1994, Study 4). The magnitude
of these ICCs is similar to those obtained in
studies where subjects are asked to provide
prototypicality ratings for different kinds of
emotions or kinds of love (e.g., Fehr &
Russell, 1984,1991). In addition, mean rat-
ings at both times in Studies 1 and 2, in
Study 4,and in Fehr and Broughton’s (1994)
Study 4 are highly intercorrelated, ranging
from .96 to .99.
326
If one wishes to demonstrate reliability in
the form of internal consistency, the features
of each prototype can be rated. As men-
tioned earlier, when this is done, the alpha
coefficients reach acceptable levels. The dis-
advantage, however, is a dramatic increase
in the number of ratings that subjects are re-
quired t o make. A very attractive feature of
the single-item format was that subjects
were exposed to the entire content of each
prototype, but by requiring only one rating,
a wide range of views of love could be meas-
ured. Thus, future psychometric work aimed
at increasing reliability will come at the cost
of reducing the bandwidth of the love do-
main that can be assessed.
The prototype measures fared well in
terms of validity. In Study 3, subjects were
able to determine the kind of love depicted
in each feature list. Study 4 revealed a rich
and meaningful network of associations be-
tween the prototype measures and extant
measures of love. This study also high-
lighted areas of greatest overlap between
laypeople’s and experts’ conceptions. In ad-
dition, there is now evidence that these
measures are well-suited for exploring gen-
der and personality differences in views of
love (see Fehr & Broughton, 1994).
The studies conducted represent only
the first steps toward the development of a
prototype-based assessment of views of
love. A number of issues will have to be
addressed in future research before a thor-
ough evaluation of the merits and pitfalls of
this approach can be made. Two such issues
are discussed next.
Correlation of the prototype scales with other
nieasiires. Study 4 focused exclusively on ex-
perts’ measures of love (see footnote 4),
given that this construct was what the proto-
types were intended to assess. In doing so,
Study 4 enabled a comparison of experts’
and laypeople’s conceptions. However, it
also would be useful to consider the proto-
type measures in relation to several current
approaches to the study of relationship phe-
nomena that fail somewhere between a
strict expert and a strict layperson-based
B. Fehr
conceptualization. One prominent example
is the work of Davis and his colleagues (e.g.,
Davis & Latty-Mann, 1987; Davis &
Roberts, 1985; Davis & Todd, 1982, 1985;
Davis, Todd, & Denneny, 1988), who take a
paradigm case formulation approach. In this
approach, experts choose a genuine case of
the phenomenon under study and list its
characteristics (see Davis & Todd, 1985, pp.
18-19). The archetypal paradigm case that is
derived is an ideal case to which actual in-
stances of the phenomenon can be com-
pared. For example, Davis and Todd (1985)
generated a paradigm case of friendship. Af-
ter the authors had produced a set of charac-
teristics, laypeople were given an opportu-
nity to contribute additional attributes.
Davis and Todd then developed a scale, the
Relationship Rating Form, to assess the ex-
tent to which the characteristics of the para-
digm case are present in a given relationship.
The scale measures aspects of relationships
such as intimacy, caring, satisfaction, con-
flict, and so on.
In the attachment area, a related ap-
proach has been taken that can be described
as expert-driven in terms of conceptualiza-
tion, but prototype-like in methodology.
Specifically, descriptions of three (or four)
attachment styles have been generated by
experts (e.g., Bartholomew, 1990; Hazan &
Shaver, 1987). Subjects typically have been
presented with these descriptions and asked
to indicate which description best repre-
sents their orientation to relationships.
These depictions of the various attachment
styles have explicitly been referred to as
prototypes (e.g., Bartholomew, 1990; Levy
& Davis, 1988).
Recently, several researchers have be-
gun to examine how the Relationship Rat-
ing Form and the attachment style descrip-
tions relate to various love scales. For
example, Hendrick and Hendrick (1989)
published a factor analysis of a group of
scales including their love style scales (Love
Attitudes Scale), Hatfield and Sprecher’s
(1986) Passionate Love scale, Sternberg’s
Triangular Theory of Love scale, Davis’s
Relationship Rating Form, and Hazan and
Assessment of views of love
Shaver’s (1987) attachment style descrip-
tions. Their five-factor solution has since
been replicated by Davis (personal commu-
nication, 1994) and Tzeng (1993). It would
be helpful to extend this line of work by
including the prototype scales. An examina-
tion of the correlations between the proto-
types and the Relationship Rating Form
and attachment scales would illuminate
how these approaches, which represent
blends of expert and prototype approaches,
relate to a strict layperson-based assess-
ment. A complete mapping of the relations
among expert, lay, and the combination of
expert and lay approaches to the concep-
tion and measurement of love (and related
constructs) would be of great benefit to
close-relationship researchers.
How many prototypes should there be? Al-
though it is generally acknowledged that
love exists in a myriad of forms, social psy-
chologists usually focus on only two or
three-romantic/passionate and compan-
ionate (e.g., Hatfield & Walster, 1978). A
central purpose of the present research was
to study a broader range of types of love
than is usually considered in the literature.
Therefore, the mean ratings, choices of pro-
totype label, and correlations with other
scales were presented for all 15 prototypes.
Obviously, these data could have been re-
duced to a smaller number of clusters or to
a few underlying dimensions. As is dis-
cussed later, it may be beneficial to move in
that direction in the future. However, at this
early stage, the loss of information that
would result from data reduction was diffi-
cult to justify in an area where there is so
little information.
For example, at first glance, it might
seem as though prototypes such as infatu-
ation and puppy love are so similar (if not
redundant) that subjects would respond to
these prototypes in identical ways. How-
ever, Study 3 revealed that subjects rarely
confuse the prototypes of these two kinds
of love--85% of subjects correctly identi-
fied the infatuation prototype (and incor-
rect responses were evenly distributed
327
across terms such as passionate, romantic,
and puppy love), and 92% correctly labeled
the puppy love prototype. In Study 4, the
infatuation prototype was significantly cor-
related with the Passionate Experience fac-
tor, whereas the puppy love prototype was
not. The same case could be made for other
conceptually related prototypes such as sib-
ling, sisterly, and brotherly love. Again, even
though there was substantial overlap in the
features of those prototypes, subjects did
not treat them as synonymous. In Study 4,
for example, scores on the sisterly love pro-
totype scale were negatively correlated
with the Pragmatic Love factor (especially
for women), whereas the correlations be-
tween the sibling love prototype and this
factor were positive. Results such as these
present interesting material for future in-
vestigations and probably would not have
been found had the prototypes been col-
lapsed into smaller sets.
An analogy can be drawn with the work
that has been done on identifying the di-
mensions underlying types of relationships.
Davis and Roberts (1985) noted that such
analyses generally yield a small number of
dimensions and commented that:
For some limited purposes such accounting
schemes may be useful, but if one aspires to rep-
resent the social knowledge that persons have of
relationships (or for that matter of emotions...),
it is clearly a mistake to impose a methodological
prejudice upon the problem before one has even
explored what the phenomena are. (p. 155)
The present studies were conducted in
this spirit of exploring “what the phenom-
ena are.” Nevertheless, as acknowledged
earlier, from a measurement perspective, a
reduction in the number of prototype scales
may be useful in the long run. This reduc-
tion could be accomplished through a vari-
ety of methods, including cluster or multidi-
mensional scaling analyses. In fact, a
preliminary series of cluster analyses were
performed-not so much with the intent of
reducing the prototypes to a smaller num-
ber (although the results suggest some of
328
the forms that data reduction might take),
but rather to determine whether the proto-
types would cluster in explicable ways. If so,
this finding would lend further credence to
the claim that these prototype measures are
valid. First, a cluster analysis using an aver-
age linkage rule was performed on the cor-
relation matrix containing subjects' similar-
ity ratings in Study 1.(Time 1 ratings were
used to maximize the number of subjects.)
The clustering algorithm began with each
prototype as its own cluster and iteratively
combined prototypes (and sets of proto-
types) with the greatest similarity until one
large cluster consisting of all 15 prototypes
was formed. As can be seen in Figure 1,the
prototypes clustered in a meaningful way.
A t the first step, puppy love and infatuation
were joined. Next, the sexual love and pas-
sionate love prototypes were combined.
Then, these two clusters were amalga-
mated. Committed and romantic love clus-
tered together next. (This grouping is not
surprising, given that, as was pointed out in
Study 4,scales to measure these two con-
structs are highly correlated.) In the sub-
sequent steps, the prototypes depicting
various kinds of nonpassionate love (e.g.,
familial and friendship; sibling and paren-
tal) clustered. Interestingly, this process ul-
timately produced two final clusters that
quite clearly depict a passionate love
grouping and a companionate love group-
ing. This distinction has proven to be funda-
1 +xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
2 +xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
3 +xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx
4 +xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx
5 +xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxxxxxx x xxxx
6 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX X XXXX
7 txxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx x x x
8 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX x x x x x
9 +xxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxx xxxx x x x x x
10 txxxx xxxxxxxxxx x x xxxx x x x x x
11 +xxxx xxxxxxxxxx x x x x x x x x x
1 2 +x x xxxxxxxxxx x x x x x x x x x
1 3 +X X XXXX XXXX X X X X X X X X X
1 4 + X X X X XXXX X X X X X X X X X
Figure 1. Cluster analysis of 15 prototypes of love:
Study 1data.
B. Fehr
mental to both laypeople's and experts'
conceptions of love (see, e.g., Fehr, 1988,
1993, in press) and surfaces again here.
Finally, the robustness of the Study 1 re-
sults was investigated by conducting a simi-
lar analysis on the data from Study 2 (as in
Study 1,Time 1 data were used). The pat-
tern of clustering was quite similar, with
prototypes depicting passionate varieties of
love clustering in the first few steps and
companionate love prototypes clustering in
the subsequent stages. The one exception
was that, in this sample, committed love
joined the companionate, not the passion-
ate, cluster as in the dating sample. Perhaps
the daters were more inclined to equate
commitment with passionate (romantic)
love than companionate love, although any
conclusions along this line should be post-
poned until this finding is replicated. Im-
portantly, the various groupings again ap-
peared to result in a distinct passionate
cluster and a distinct companionate cluster,
thereby largely replicating Study 1 and con-
firming extant literature.
In conclusion, there is no single, correct
answer to the question, How many proto-
types should there be? It is informative,
however, to consider this issue in light of
the literature on the hierarchical structure
of everyday concepts. Rosch et al. (1976)
demonstrated that natural language catego-
ries are vertically organized as hierarchies
with different levels of abstraction. Catego-
ries at higher levels subsume those at lower
levels. For example, the concept of fruit is a
superordinate-level category, with apples,
oranges, and figs at the next, lower level
(the basic level). Subcategories of each of
these (e.g., Granny Smith apple, crab apple,
and McIntosh apple) are situated at the
lowest (subordinate) level. If one thinks of
these various love categories as a hierarchy
(as has been suggested in the literature; see
Fehr & Russell, 1991), then love itself would
form the apex, with companionate and pas-
sionate love at the next lower level. Each of
these kinds of love could then be further
divided into subcategories. For example,
types
. -
of love such as friendship, sisterly
Assessment of views of love
love, and maternal love might be consid-
ered varieties of companionate love,
whereas infatuation, sexual love, and puppy
love could be taken as subcategories of pas-
sionate love.
The current data do not address whether
laypeople actually organize these kinds of
love in this way. In fact, recent evidence
suggests that, for natural-language catego-
ries, laypeople’s hierarchies are ill-defined
and fuzzy, rather than neat taxonomies with
clear, discrete levels (Russell & Fehr, 1994).
Nevertheless, it seems safe to assume that a
concept such as love exists at a higher level
of abstraction than a concept such as puppy
love or maternal love. Just which level
should be targeted in research depends on
how fine-grained an analysis is required.
Sometimes a category at a high level of ab-
straction will do. The work by Hatfield and
her colleagues is a compelling demonstra-
tion that it can be sufficient simply to assess
companionate and passionate love. Other
times it is desirable or even necessary to
conduct a more detailed analysis of mem-
bers of a category. In such cases, the focus
would be on categories at lower hierarchi-
cal levels. This approach was used in the
present research where the intent was to
explore the many varieties of love.
Lay conceptions of love
These studies further elucidated how lay-
people view love. The data provide addi-
tional support for the conclusion that, for
laypeople, companionate varieties of love,
such as friendship love or familial kinds of
love, capture the meaning of the concept.
For example, friendship love received the
highest mean rating at each testing session
in each study (see Table 2). Similar findings
were obtained in Study 4 and in data col-
lected by Fehr and Broughton (1994, Study
4). Fehr and Russell (1991) found that the
term “friendship love” ranked near the top
when subjects provided prototypicality rat-
ings for 20 love terms. Similarly, Fehr (1988)
found that companionate or friendship-like
features of the generic concept of love re-
329
ceived the highest typicality ratings. Thus,
there is a convergence of opinion, regard-
less of whether subjects are asked to rate
the word “friendship love” in terms of how
prototypical it is as a kind of love, rate
friendship-like features of love in terms of
how typical they are of love (or various
kinds of love) (see Fehr, 1993, in press), or,
as in the present studies, rate a feature list
depicting friendship love in terms of sub-
jects’ own view of love.
The family kinds of love also garnered high
similarity-to-my-own-view ratings in all stud-
ies. These companionate kinds of love have
been largely neglected by social psychologists.
However, results of these studies, coupled
with those of Fehr and Russell (1991), suggest
that these types of love also are highly repre-
sentative of the meaning of the construct to
laypeople. Given their importance, research
on the influence of various conceptions of fa-
milial love on actual relationships would be
valuable.
Finally, the two kinds of love that have
received the most research attention, ro-
mantic love and passionate love, were not
as central to subjects’ views of love as were
friendship and familial kinds of love. Ro-
mantic love tended to receive intermediate
ratings. Passionate-like prototypes (i.e., pas-
sionate, infatuation, puppy love, and sexual
love) received the lowest similarity ratings
in all of these studies. Similarly, Fehr (1988)
found that passionate-like features of love
received the lowest typicality ratings. These
terms also received the lowest typicality
ratings in Fehr and Russell’s (1991) re-
search. This does not imply that relation-
ship researchers should not study these
kinds of love. They are clearly part of the
layperson’s conception. However, they are
seen as more peripheral to the core mean-
ing of love than are friendship-based and
familial types of love.
Conclusion
In conclusion, these prototype-based meas-
ures worked well in further uncovering
laypeople’s conceptions of love. Moreover,
330
a meaningful pattern of relations was re-
vealed between the prototype measures
and existing love scales. These measures
should prove useful for exploring the rela-
tion between views of many kinds of love
and other relationship and individual dif-
References
Aron, A,, & Westbay, L. (1991). Latent structure of
love-prototype features and its relation to Erikson’s
intimacy stage. Unpublished manuscript, Univer-
sity of California, Santa Cruz.
Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An
attachment perspective. Journal of Social and Per-
sonal Relationships, 7, 147-178.
Brchm, S. S. (1985). Intimate relationships. Ncw York:
Random Housc.
Broughthn, R. (1984). A prototype strategy for con-
struction of personality scales. Journal of Personal-
ity arid Social Psychology, 47,1334-1346.
Broughton, R. (1986). Distance from f h e prototype: A
multidintensional scaling approach to personality
assessment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
Broughton, R. (1990). The prototype conccpt in pcr-
sonality asscssmcnt. Canadian Psychology, 31,26-
37.
Buss, D. M. (1988). The evolutionary biology of love.
In R. J. Stcrnbcrg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The
psychology of love (pp. 100-118). Ncw Haven, C T
Y a k University Press.
Buss, D. M., & Craik, K. H. (1980). Thc frequency
conccpt of disposition: Dominance and prototypi-
cally dominant acts. Journal of Research in Person-
ality, 43,379-392.
Buss, D. M., & Craik, K. H. (1983). Thc act frequency
approach to personality. Psychological Review, 90,
105-126.
Campbell, J. I. D., & Clark, J. M. (1988). An cncoding-
coinplcx vicw of cognitive number proccssing:
Coinincnt on McCloskey, Sokol, and Goodman
(1986). Jozirriut of Experimental Psychology: Geri-
eral, I 17,204-214.
Collins, N. L., & Rcad, S. J. (1990). Adult attachrncnt,
working models, and relationship quality in dating
couplcs. Jourrial of Personality arid Social Psychol-
ogy, 58,644-663.
Davis, K. E., & Latty-Mann, H. (1987). Lovc stylcs and
relationship quality: A contribution to validation.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4,
409428.
Davis, K. E., & Robcrts, M. K. (1985). Relationships in
the real world: Thc descriptive psychology ap-
proach to pcrsonal rclationships. In K. J. Gcrgen &
K. E. Davis (Eds.), The social constructiori of the
person (pp. 145-1 63). New York: Springer-Vcrlag.
Davis, K. E., & Todd, M. J. (1982). Fricndship and love
rclationships. In K. E. Davis & T. 0. Mitchell
(Eds.), Advnnces in descripfivepsycliology (Vol. 2,
pp. 79-122). Grecnwich, CT: JAI Prcss.
Davis, K. E., & Todd, M. J. (1985). Assessing friend-
ship: Prototypcs, paradigm cascs, and rclationship
B. Fehr
ference constructs. As such, they represent
a first step toward the goal of accumulating
a body of knowledge for the other varieties
of love similar to that which now exists for
romantic love.
description. In S. W. Duck & D. Perlman (Eds.),
Understanding personal relationships (pp. 17-38).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Davis, K. E., Todd, M. J., Denneny, J. B. (1988). Per-
sonal networks, friendship, and love relationships
over the life cycle. Social and Behavioral Science
Documents, I7(2), 1-18.
Dion, K. L., & Dion, K. K. (1973). Correlates of roman-
tic lovc. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol-
ogy, 41,51-56.
Dion, K. K., & Dion, K. L. (1985). Personality, gender,
and the phenomenology of romantic love. In P.
Shaver (Ed.), Review ofpersonality andsocialpsychol-
ogy (Vol. 6, pp. 209-239). Beverly Hills, C A Sage.
Fchr, B. (1988). Prototype analysis of thc concepts of
love and commitment. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 55,557-579.
Fehr,B. (1993).HowdoIlovethee ...? Letmeconsult
my prototype. In S. Duck (Ed.), Individuals in
relationships (Vol. 1, pp. 87-120). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Fehr, B. (1994). Unpubiished raw data, University of
Winnipcg.
Fchr, B. (in press). Lovc. In D. Levinson (Ed.), Ency-
clopedia of marriage and the family. New York:
Macmillan.
Fehr, B., & Broughton, R. H. (1994). Individual differ-
ences in views of love. Unpublished manuscript,
University of Winnipeg.
Fehr, B., & Russell, J. A. (1984). Concept of emotion
viewed from a prototype perspective. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, 113,464486.
Fehr, B., & Russell, J. A. (1991). Concept of love
vicwed from a prototype perspective. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 60,425-438.
Fengler, A. P. (1974). Romantic love in courtship: Di-
vergent paths of male and female students. Journal
of Coniporative Family Studies, 5, 134-139.
Fitncss, J., & Fletchcr, G. J. 0. (1993). Lovc, hatc,
angcr, and jealousy in close relationships: A proto-
type and cognitive appraisal analysis. Journal of
Personality arid Social Psychology, 65,942-958.
Hatfield, E. (1982). Passionate love, companionate
love and intimacy. In M. Fisher & G. Strickcr
(Eds.), Intimacy (pp. 267-292). Ncw York: Plenum.
Hatficld, E., & Sprecher, S. (1986). Measuring passion-
ate love in intimate relationships. Journal of A d o -
lescence, 9,383410.
Hatfield, E., & Walster, G. W. (1978). A new look at
love. Rcading, MA: Addison-Wcsley.
Hazan, C., & Shavcr, P. (1987). Romantic love concep-
tualizcd as an attachment process. Journal of Per-
sonality arid Social Psychology, 52,511-523.
Hcndrick, C., & Hcndrick, S. S. (1986). A theory and
Assessment of views of love
method of love. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 50,392-402.
Hendrick, C., & Hendriek, S. S. (1989). Research on
love: Does it measure up? Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 56,784-794.
Hobart, C. W. (1958). Incidence of romanticism during
courtship. Social Forces, 36,363-367.
Holliday, S. G., & Chandler, M. (1986). Wisdom: En-
plorations in adult competence (Human Develop-
m e n t M o n o g r a p h No. 17). Basel: C a r g e r
Publishing.
Kanin, E. J., Davidson, K. R., & Scheck, S. R. (1970).
A research note on male-female differentials in the
experience of heterosexual love. Journal of Sex
Research, 6,64-72.
Kelley, H. H. (1983). Love and commitment. In H. H.
Kelley et al. (Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 265-
314). New York: Freeman.
Knox, D. H., & Sporakowski, M. J. (1968). Attitudes of
collcgc students toward love. Joitrnal of Marriage
and the Family, 30, 638-642.
Lee, J. A. (1973). The colours of love. Don Mills,
Ontario: Ncw Press.
Levy, M., &Davis, K. E. (1988). Lovestyles and attach-
ment styles compared: Their relations to each other
and to various relationship characteristics. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 5,439471.
Longman, R. S., Cota, A. A., Holden, R., & Fekken,
G . C. (1989). A regression equation for the parallel
analysis criterion in principal components analysis:
Mean and 95th percentile eigenvalues. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 24,59-69.
Lund, M. (1985). The development of investment and
commitnicnt scalcs for predicting continuity of per-
sonal relationships. Joiirnal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 2, 3-23.
McCroskey, J. C., & Young, T. J. (1979). The use and
abuse of factor analysis in communication research.
Hitman Cornniunication Research, 5,375-382.
Munro, B., & A d a m , G. R. (1978). Love American style:
A tcst of role structure theory on changes in attitudes
toward love. Hiirnan Relations, 31,215-218.
331
Roseh, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M.,
& Boycs-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural
categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8,382-439.
Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 265-
273.
Rubin, Z. (1973). Liking and loving. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.
Russell, J. A., & Fehr, B. (1994). The varieties of anger:
Fuzzy concepts in a fuzzy hierarchy. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology.
Shaver, P., Sehwartz, J., Kirson, D., & O’Connor, C.
(1987). Emotion knowledge: Further exploration of
a prototype approach. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 52,1061-1086.
Simpson, J. A. (1990). The influence of attachment
styles on romantic relationships. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 59,971-980.
Spaulding, C. (1970). The romantic love complex in
American culture. Sociology and Social Research,
55,82-100.
Sprccher, S . , & Metts, S. (1989). Development of
the “Romantic Beliefs Scale” and examination of
the effects of gender and gender-role orientation.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6,
385-409.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grajek, S. (1984). The nature of
love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
47,312-329.
Sternberg, R. J., & Barnes, M. L. (Eds.). (1988). The
psychology of love. New Haven, C T Yale Univer-
sity Press.
Tzeng, P. C. S. (1993). Measure of love and intimate
relationx Theories, scales, applications for love de-
velopment, nzaintenance, and dissolution. Westport,
CT: Praeger.
Wiggins, J. S., Trapnell, P., & Phillips, N. (1988). Psy-
chometric and geometric characteristics of the
Revised Interpersonal Adjective Scales (IAS-R).
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23,517-530.
Winer, B. J. (1962). Statisticalprinciples in experimental
design. New York: McGraw-Hill.