Ill Be Shocked if I Ever Like Anyone Again

Introduction

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

Beloved and detest are related to each other in a circuitous manner; the methodological approaches used by previous researchers have limited effectiveness in exploring the intricate relationship between love and hate. In addition, there has been little inquiry on the psychological mechanisms that could explicate the interrelations betwixt love and hate. Therefore, our study investigates how these ii affects are related. To pursue such a research objective, 1 must consider how best to induce varying levels of feelings of love.

Previous studies have plant that attraction is a crucial status for the development of romantic love (Cutler et al., 1998; Braxton-Davis, 2010; Miller and Maner, 2010). Similarity, rather than complementarity, plays a cardinal role in attraction (Berscheid and Reis, 1998; Luo and Klohnen, 2005; Hudson et al., 2014). Many aspects of similarity take been studied in relation to attraction. In the current study, we 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 than harmonious relationships (Buunk and Bosman, 1986; Lemay and Clark, 2008). Ideological similarity also implies commonalities in behaviors which further contribute to mutual attraction in the context of romantic honey (Schafer and Keith, 1990). From this perspective, similarity may exist a central factor that influences the degree of beloved. In addition, researchers found that differences in excellence levels, such as those relating to ability and achievement, between partners would likewise be an important gene 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 dearest. That is, nosotros concurrently varied the levels of similarity and excellence of different targets. We explored whether participants felt stronger dear for a target who was more than like to themselves when the targets and participants were of the same level of excellence. Additionally, we were also interested in whether participants accept different emotional reactions toward different target persons in the context of romantic love and hate.

We examined ii enquiry questions in the current research. Kickoff, would there be greater feelings of honey between ii persons if they were more like to each other? Second, under sure conditions, does a person'southward love generate a respective level of hate when negative events occurred to his or her romantic partner?

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

Materials and Methods

Participants

Sixty volunteers, recruited from different colleges, participated in the experiment. One participant had misunderstood the instructions and was thus excluded from the analyses. As a result, the concluding studied sample consists of 59 participants (30 men, 29 women, age G = xx.two years, SD = 1.5). None of the participants reported whatever previous diagnoses of psychiatric or neurological illnesses. Roughly 18% of the participants said they were looking for a relationship, 33% were in a relationship, 24% had experienced a break-up, and the remaining 25% had non been in any relationships. The study was approved by the Ethics Commission of the School of Psychology at Southward China Normal University. Each participant had provided written informed consent prior to participating in the experiment. They were also given minor tokens of appreciation for their participation.

Materials

The vignettes used in the nowadays experimental paradigm were adapted from a previous study that investigated the neural correlates of green-eyed and schadenfreude (Takahashi et al., 2009). The vignettes were modified to fit the present romantic beloved context, according to the previous definitions of dearest (Hatfield and Sprecher, 1986; Schafer and Keith, 1990). The people in the vignettes included ane protagonist and three targets (i.due east., targets A, B, and C) corresponding to three manipulated conditions (encounter Supplementary Material). Participants were asked to study and sympathise 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). See Supplementary Tabular array S1 for details.

Questionnaire

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

Procedures

Learning Materials

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

www.frontiersin.org

FIGURE ane. Part one consisted of three phases: studying the materials, rating on the computer, and completing the PLS. This effigy presents a schematic depiction of the stimuli and rating task design of Part 1 (love). Commencement, 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 acme 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.

www.frontiersin.org

Figure two. Part 2 consisted of two phases: rating on the computer and completing the PLS. This figure presents a schematic depiction of the stimuli and rating task design of Part 2 (hate). Specific traits of Lover A, Lover B, and Lover C were presented as in Part ane. Each trait was followed by a subsequent negative event, which was presented for 2000 ms or until response. The meridian line indicated a target person, and the lesser line indicated a negative event. A thousand ms inter-stimulus interval was interleaved between each trait and negative event.

First, participants were asked to read a story and imagine that they were the protagonist (see Supplementary Material). Next, the participants were asked to recall relevant primal details about themselves by responding to sentences beginning with "I am…" Post-obit this, participants were instructed to read three vignettes describing 3 different situations. Each vignette involved the protagonist and three targets. Participants were asked to recall the information 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

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

In Part 1, we asked participants to imagine themselves as the protagonist when reading the scenario, and then rate each trait presented in terms of how much love they felt toward a target based on the presented features of the 3 targets (i = none; 6 = extreme love). Subsequently that, we used the PLS to measure participants' feelings of beloved with the three targets.

In Function 2 of the experiment, the background characteristics of A, B, and C were unchanged; however, nosotros 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 and so asked to rate how much detest they felt toward A, B, and C (ane = none; 6 = farthermost hate). Upon completion of Part 2, participants completed the PLS again to assess their feelings of love toward the three targets.

Analysis

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

Additionally, we used a 3 (target: A, B, and C) × 2 (fourth dimension: before vs. afterwards) ii-way repeated measures ANOVA to analyze the degree of dear level perceived by the protagonist in relation to the three targets earlier and after the negative events. Next, we used a three (target: A, B, and C) × 2 (affect: love vs. hate) two-fashion repeated measures ANOVA to clarify the relationship between the honey and detest scores. Tests of unproblematic main effects were performed when an interaction effect was statistically significant. In addition, we used Pearson's correlation analysis to examination the correlations between scores for love and hate. Later on, we used partial correlations to examine the clan betwixt love and hate decision-making for participants' gender and age.

Results

Degree of Honey

Across the different atmospheric condition (targets A, B, and C), the results of the i-style 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 dearest toward target A (5.53 ± 0.48) was significantly college than that of target B (iv.52 ± 0.54) [F(1,58) = 177.796, p < 0.001, ηtwo = 0.754], and the degree of beloved toward B was significantly higher than that of target C (ane.66 ± 0.45) [F(1,58) = 977.526, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.944].

Additionally, across the dissimilar targets, the results of the one-style repeated measures ANOVA revealed significant differences in participants' PLS scores of the three targets [F(2,116) = 450.352, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.886]. Farther analyses of the elementary main effects showed that the degree of passionate beloved toward target A (109.73 ± 11.80) was significantly higher than that of target B (93.46 ± fourteen.59) [F(1,58) = 60.263, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.510], and the degree of passionate dear toward target B was significantly higher than that of target C (38.39 ± 20.40) [F(1,58) = 519.537, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.900].

Degree of Hate

Beyond the different targets, the results of the one-fashion repeated measures ANOVA revealed significant differences in the degree of detest after the negative outcome manipulation [F(2,116) = 229.64, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.798]. Further analyses of the simple main furnishings showed that the caste of hate toward target A (v.25 ± 0.57) was significantly college than that of target B (4.84 ± 0.55) [F(i,58) = 34.768, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.375], and the degree of hate toward target B was significantly higher than that of target C (3.02 ± 0.98) [F(one,58) = 216.921, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.789].

Across the different targets, the results of the one-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed pregnant differences of the overall PLS scores later the negative event manipulation [F(2,116) = 316.544, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.845]. Further analyses of the uncomplicated master effects showed that the PLS score for target A (88.95 ± 22.00) was significantly higher than that of target B (71.97 ± 21.83) [F(1,58) = 63.119, p < 0.001, ηii = 0.521], and the score for target B was significantly higher than that of target C (27.81 ± 14.39) [F(1,58) = 333.357, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.852].

The 3 (targets: A, B, C) × 2 (time: before vs. after) ii-manner repeated measures ANOVA revealed a pregnant target × time interaction [F(2,116) = 10.432, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.152] on PLS scores. Further simple main upshot analyses revealed that after the negative event manipulation, participants' honey scores for target A was significantly lower than earlier the manipulation [A-Before: 109.73 ± 11.80, A-Subsequently: 88.95 ± 22.00; F(ane,58) = 74.822, p < 0.001, ηtwo = 0.560]. Similarly, participants' love scores for target B [B-Before: 93.46 ± 14.59, B-After: 71.97 ± 21.83; F(1,58) = 68.179, p < 0.001, ηtwo = 0.540] and target C were also significantly lower than before the manipulation [C-Before: 38.39 ± 20.40, C-After: 27.81 ± 14.39; F(1,58) = 27.842, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.324].

Dearest and Detest

The 3 (targets: A, B, C) × two (impact: dear vs. hate) two-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed a pregnant target × affect interaction [F(2,116) = 95.357, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.622]. Farther unproblematic issue analyses found that participants' honey of target A was significantly college than that of hate, even if they were betrayed by target A [A-Love: v.53 ± 0.48, A-Hate: 5.25 ± 0.57; F(ane,58) = 17.889, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.236]. Conversely, participants' beloved for target B was significantly lower than that of hate [B-Beloved: 4.52 ± 0.54, B-Hate: four.84 ± 0.55; F(1,58) = fourteen.652, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.202]. Similarly, participants' love for target C was also significantly lower than that of hate [C-Love: 1.66 ± 0.45, C-Hate: iii.02 ± 0.98; F(1,58) = 102.933, p < 0.001, ηtwo = 0.640] (Figure 3).

www.frontiersin.org

Effigy 3. The dear and hate level of all participants in response to the 3 (targets: A, B, C) × 2 (bear on: love, hate) 2-ways repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant target × affect interaction. Fault bars represent +i standard fault (SE). Participants' caste of beloved for A (excellent and loftier similarity with the participants) was however higher than hate after negative events occurred, but the tendency for B (excellent and moderate similarity) and C (low excellence and depression similarity) is contrary.

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

Discussion

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

Offset, 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 opposite sex who was similar to them, thus, supporting our kickoff hypothesis. Previous studies take examined whether similarity or complementarity played a more vital part in mutual attraction (Berscheid and Reis, 1998) and ended that the former was more important. This view has also been supported past research looking at mate preferences (Luo and Klohnen, 2005) and quality of marital relationships (Hudson et al., 2014).

Previous studies had more often than not recruited couples or partners who were already in a relationship, and in that location is niggling direct bear witness on whether the similarity of the two individuals had a crucial role in the development of a romantic relationship. A recent report (Conroy-Beam et al., 2016) reported that mate value discrepancies predicted relationship satisfaction. To some extent, they considered the equivalence in social status between both partners to be an important gene relating to relationship satisfaction. In our study, yet, when the participants were presented with two potential partners equal to them in excellence, participants perceived greater love for the 1 who was more similar to themselves. Relatedly, similarity also played an of import function in mate pick. Our findings complemented the findings of other enquiry in this area. Individuals who were similar to each other hands formed skillful impressions of each other within a brusk time. This finding combined with results of previous studies suggests that similarity plays a vital role in allure, regardless of situations involving "love at first sight" or impressions based on long-term exchanges.

Second, nosotros constitute meaning associations between romantic love and hate in the context of a romantic relationship. When presented with negative events with three different target persons, participants nearly 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 also a type of relationship with others and oneself. That is, in managing their relationships with others, people are at the same time managing themselves and their psyches (Alford, 2005). In the context of an private's love and hate, when the relationship one had developed with a item partner was destroyed, the romantic love consequently turned into hate. Especially from the perspectives of young couples in romantic relationships, hate is also a reflection of love.

The relationship betwixt love and hate can be explained from different perspectives. Romantic hate 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 fear of the private in love, while cognitive jealousy mainly relates to the individual's negative mental 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, cerebral jealousy is directly related to relationship dissatisfaction between lovers (Elphinston et al., 2013). Previous studies have likewise institute a positive human relationship between romantic love and jealousy. That is, the more than one loves a person, the more than sensitive one becomes when encountering threats to the relationship (Mathes and Severa, 1981; Orosz et al., 2015). Thus, individuals feel more beloved and more hatred toward the aforementioned lover.

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

At the same time, our results showed a meaning interaction between targets (A vs. B vs. C) and affects (love vs. hate). Further analyses revealed that an individual'southward caste of love for target A (equal excellence and high similarity with the protagonist) is however higher than the degree of hate afterward negative event manipulation, but the results were reversed for target B (equal excellence and low similarity with the protagonist) and target C (unequal excellence and low similarity with the protagonist). In other words, although the three targets were associated with the aforementioned negative events, the level of hatred varied across the three targets. If, initially, the individual loved the target the most, the degree of love is even so college than that of detest after the negative event. However, when the individual did not dearest the target equally much initially, the degree of love would be markedly lower than that of hate.

These results illustrate the complication associated with romantic dearest and hate. People accept unlike emotional reactions toward unlike target persons in the context of romantic honey and detest. For the person whom one loves the most or even hates, love may still exist ascendant in the context of betrayal. This hate is a reflection of love and a feeling of sorrow. However, for the person one does not dear, feelings of hate are stronger than those of love. This hate perhaps has its roots in the moral dimension, which mainly concern social judgments about the quality of a person. This is why people experience such pain upon betrayal in a romantic human relationship.

Graham and Clark (2006) found that individuals who expect at a relationship as "all practiced" or "all bad" take lower self-esteem compared to others. These individuals also have long-term concerns about whether their partners are willing to accept them in a closed relationship. The authors proffered this as the reason behind beloved and hate, and that this miracle could exist observed in whatsoever relationship. Needless to say, the circuitous precursors of dear and detest can exist interpreted in many ways. Peradventure every bit some of the nearly ubiquitous emotions, people need to comprehend and explain dearest and detest objectively and rationally. Although we written report the nature of love and hate from a rational point of view and from an emotional perspective to explicate the precursors of these two bones emotions, humans are emotional beings.

In summary, we demand to comprehend the relationship between love and hate both rationally and emotionally. If nosotros pay close attention to hate, we can better empathize love (Tjeltveit, 2003). This idea justified us carrying out the current study. Even so, there are iii limitations to this study. First, even though nosotros 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 non command for participants' current relationship status. In our future research, we may explore whether human relationship condition predicts feelings of dearest and hate using this experimental image. Tertiary, the findings of the current study were also limited by the manipulation of similarity between the participants and the three 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.

Decision

Our results supported the idea that "the deeper the dearest, the deeper the detest," and suggested similarity equally a crucial factor influencing feelings of dearest and hate. In addition, people have unlike emotional reactions toward different people in the context of romantic love and hate. For the person whom one loves or hates the virtually, love may nonetheless be dominant in the context of betrayal. However, for the person one does not dear, feelings of hatred are stronger than those of love. This written report also provided support for the relationship betwixt romantic love and hate, and highlighted the important office of similarity in moderating the relationship betwixt love and detest.

Ethics Statement

The present written report was canonical by the Ethic Committee of the School of Psychology at South Red china Normal Academy. Each participant volunteered to take office in this study and provided written informed consent before the start of the experiment.

Author 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 Central Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences, MOE, (No. 16JJD190001).

Disharmonize of Interest Argument

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

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Fabric for this article tin exist plant online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/manufactures/ten.3389/fpsyg.2017.01940/total#supplementary-material

References

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

Google Scholar

Aron, A., Fisher, H., Mashek, D. J., Stiff, K., Li, H., and Brown, L. Fifty. (2005). Reward, motivation, and emotion systems associated with early-phase intense romantic love. J. Neurophysiol. 94, 327–337. doi: x.1152/jn.00838.2004

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Berscheid, E., and Reis, H. T. (1998). "Attraction 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 love and allure. McNair Scholars J. 14, 6–ten.

Google Scholar

Conroy-Axle, 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 Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cutler, W. B., Friedmann, E., and McCoy, N. 50. (1998). Pheromonal influences on sociosexual beliefs in men. Arch. Sexual practice. Behav. 27, 1–13. 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. One thousand. Cole (Lincoln, NE: Academy of Nebraska Press), 207–283.

Google Scholar

Elphinston, R. A., Feeney, J. A., Noller, P., Connor, J. P., and Fitzgerald, J. (2013). Romantic jealousy and relationship satisfaction: the costs of rumination. West. J. Commun. 77, 293–304. doi: ten.1080/10570314.2013.770161

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

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

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fehr, B., and Russell, J. A. (1991). The concept of honey viewed from a prototype perspective. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 60:425. doi: ten.1037/0022-3514.threescore.3.425

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fisher, H. E., Aron, A., and Brownish, L. L. (2006). Romantic beloved: a mammalian brain system for mate choice. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 361, 2173–2186. doi: ten.1098/rstb.2006.1938

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Graham, S. M., and Clark, M. S. (2006). Self-esteem and organization 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.four.652

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hatfield, Eastward., and Sprecher, South. (1998). "The passionate dearest scale," in Handbook of Sexuality-related Measures, eds T. D. Fisher, C. M. Davis, Westward. L. Yaber, and S. L. Davis (K Oaks, CA: Taylor & Francis), 449–451.

Google Scholar

Hatfield, Due east., Utne, M. K., and Traupmann, J. (1979). "Disinterestedness theory and intimate relationships," in Social Exchange in Developing Relationships, eds R. Burgess and T. L. Huston (New York, NY: Bookish Printing), 99–133.

Google Scholar

Hendrick, C., and Hendrick, S. S. (1989). Research on love: does it measure up? J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 56:784. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.56.v.784

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hudson, N. 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. xl, 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 middle: projection of communal responsiveness guides relationship promotion. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 94, 647–671. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.94.iv.647

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mathes, E. West., and Severa, Northward. (1981). Jealousy, romantic dear, and liking: theoretical considerations and preliminary calibration evolution. Psychol. Rep. 49, 23–31. doi: x.2466/pr0.1981.49.one.23

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Orosz, Chiliad., Szekeres,Á., Kiss, Z. M., Farkas, P., and Roland-Lévy, C. (2015). Elevated romantic love and jealousy if relationship status is declared on Facebook. Front. Psychol. half-dozen:214. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00214

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

Schafer, R. B., and Keith, P. M. (1990). Matching past 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 Surround: Exploring Spousal relationship and the Family, 2d Edn. Boston, MA: Niggling, Dark-brown and Company.

Google Scholar

Sober, E. (2002). "The ABCs of altruism," in Altruism and Altruistic Love, eds S. J. Post, Fifty. G. Underwood, J. P. Schloss, and Due west. B. Hurlbut (London: Oxford Academy Press), 17–28.

Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

Takahashi, H., Kato, G., Matsuura, Thou., 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: x.1126/science.1165604

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

Walster, East., Berscheid, E., and Walster, G. W. (1973). New directions in equity inquiry. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 25, 151–176. doi: x.1037/h0033967

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

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

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

maldonadocovid1986.blogspot.com

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

0 Response to "Ill Be Shocked if I Ever Like Anyone Again"

Post a Comment

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel