CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS RESEARCH: A RESOURCE FOR COUPLE AND FAMILY THERAPISTS

Hendrick, Susan S

This article describes the relatively new field of close relationships research, offering a representative list of topics studied by relationship researchers. Some of the common interests shared by both close relationships researchers and couple and family therapists are described, with the shared emphasis on relationships as an anchor for both fields. Some representative love theories are discussed, and Love Styles theory and research are presented in considerable detail. A clinical case example indicates how love styles research may be employed to advantage by couple therapists, and the utility of other close relationships theories and measures for therapy is briefly discussed.

As a counseling psychologist, close relationships researcher, and marriage and family therapist, I feel a natural affinity for both the close relationships and couple and family therapy fields. Topical areas and findings in the close relationships area are so relevant to the research and practice of couple and family therapy that I want to share my experiences in both worlds.

The close relationships area, referred to more recently as relationship science (Berscheid, 1999), is an interdisciplinary research area emerging largely during the last two to three decades. Several research traditions coalesced to form this new field, including the interpersonal attraction work of social psychologists, the emphasis on the family unit from family studies and family sociology, and the focus on interpersonal communication from communication studies. These largely separate tributaries have formed a single strong and ever-widening stream of research and applications (e.g., books, articles, two journals, organizations, and conferences) to the varied forms of close relationships, including but not limited to the romantic couple (dating, cohabiting, and married couples), parent-child relationships, same-gender and cross-gender friendships, relationships in the workplace, and under-studied relationships, such as gay and lesbian, and multiracial/multiethnic relationships.

SOME LINKS BETWEEN CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS AND COUPLE AND FAMILY THERAPY

The close relationships area has much in common with the couple/marriage and family therapy field. First, both fields have a substantial interest in the relationship as a primary unit of focus. To be sure, many couple therapists work with only one member of a dyad, because that partner requires individual attention before the couple can be treated, because the nonattending partner refuses therapy, or because of some other reason. Close relationships researchers frequently focus on individual participants, because individuals' emotions, cognitions, or behaviors are of primary interest, because couple samples are more difficult to secure than samples of individuals, and so on. Yet the attuned therapist always views the individual as part of a dyad/system (as well as of a larger social network). The relationship partner is often in the therapy room, either explicitly through an intervention, such as an empty chair, or implicitly through the power of a relationship to surround and penetrate the individual. For the researcher, the proximal focus may be one partner in a relationship, yet the distal focus is always the relationship. The effort for the researcher is to understand and perhaps predict the relationship, whereas the effort for the therapist is to improve and perhaps shape the relationship. Both description and prediction are of interest to the couple/marital therapist and to the close relationships researcher.

One recent review by a practicing clinician and active researcher (Johnson, 2003) keys in on the utility of relationship research for the couple and family therapist and scholar. Susan Johnson does this by referring to relationship science as "evolving and supporting a renewal of the discipline of couples therapy" (p. 182) and by singling out work on attachment (e.g., Cassidy & Shaver, 1999), especially adult attachment, which she believes provides a particularly elegant and applicable overarching theory for love and other phenomena in couple relationships. Although attachment offers one lens through which love can be viewed, I present in this article some of the other lenses that are available. Attachment is one area of close relationships work (e.g., Feeney & Noller, 1996); however, the research in close relationships covers a much broader expanse of topics.

Close relationships research is grounded in a wellness model of relationships, which focuses on such things as love, commitment, social support, and so on. Yet it also recognizes the "dark side" of relationships by addressing such topics as jealousy, infidelity, and relational violence. A sampling of these topics is shown in Table 1, most of them drawn from handbooks of the close relationships field (e.g., Duck, 1988, 1997; C. Hendrick & Hendrick, 2000). Many if not most of these issues are relevant to couple therapists, with topics such as remarried families, family and work, and relationships and health also very relevant to therapists who work only with families.

My own research for more than 20 years has been largely a collaborative research program with Clyde Hendrick that has focused on love attitudes, sexual attitudes, and relationship satisfaction. Our love research is highlighted in this article as an example-and only an example-of what close relationships research has to offer couple and family researchers and therapists. Although the focus is on the couple rather than the family, systemic therapists will be able to apply the dyadic concepts to the dyads who form subsystems within the larger systems that couple and family therapists encounter.

RESEARCH ON LOVE

Before discussing our love attitudes research, it is important to be acquainted with some of the other close relationships approaches to love, because this broader view exemplifies the multidimensional theoretical approach to concepts that characterizes close relationships research. Love is not simply attachment, nor is it simply my own work on love. And the more conceptual tools that couple and family therapists have to choose from, the more likely they are to find close relationships research useful to their own work.

Passionate and Companionate Love

Social psychologists Ellen Berscheid and Elaine Hatfield (formerly Walster; 1978) developed the contrasting perspectives of passionate love (high emotional intensity-the blazing fire of love) and companionate love (consistent, if not intense emotion-the glowing embers of love). This approach is either/or in the sense that the excitement of passionate love early in a relationship evolves naturally into the more secure stability of companionate love as a relationship endures over time. Research on passionate love continued with development of the Passionate Love Scale (Hatfield & Sprecher, 1986). Although this sort of evolution of love over time may capture the reality of some couples, other research (S. Hendrick & Hendrick, 1993) indicates that many couples value highly both passionate and companionate love, more of a both/and approach. Indeed Noller (1996) concluded that the "combination of passionate and companionate love is likely to be related to the love that supports marriage and family" (p. 101).

Prototype Approaches

Fehr (1988, 1993, 1994) has employed a prototype perspective, in which a concept (in this case, love) is studied based on its "best example" or "best set of features." Across several research studies, she and her colleagues (see also Fehr & Russell, 1991) found that when asked to list features of love and rate the typicality of various features, people consistently found companionate features to be more important than passionate ones and also rated maternal love, parental love, and friendship as more prototypical of love than passionate or more general romantic love. Fehr (1993) proposed that people distinguish between passionate love and companionate love, with the former more particularized to one significant other person and the latter more generalized to several types of love relationships.

Love As Self-Expansion

Still another research approach, based on Eastern traditions, views romantic love as an aspect of personal growth or expansion of the self (E. Aron & Aron, 1996). "The idea is that the self expands toward knowing or becoming that which includes everything and everyone, the Self. The steps along the way are ones of including one person or thing, then another, then still another" (p. 45-46).

Romantic love fits within this model in that the act of loving another and relating to another in a romantic way typically involves an incorporation of the other into oneself and inclusion of oneself within the other, an emotional fusion, if you will. The process of "falling in love" is a particularly salient example of self-expansion, in that self-expansion and inclusion/fusion occur very rapidly, with heady emotional overtones.

The Triangular Theory of Love

The Triangular Theory of Love (Sternberg, 1986, 1987) is a multidimensional approach, proposing that love is composed of different amounts of three characteristics: intimacy, passion, and commitment. Mixing these components in varying proportions creates eight different types of romantic love: Liking (intimacy only), Infatuated love (passion only), Empty love (commitment only), Romantic love (passion and intimacy), Companionate love (commitment and intimacy), Fatuous love (commitment and passion), Consummate love (all three components present), and Empty love (all three components absent).

Love Ways

Finally, a communication-oriented approach was taken by Marston, Hecht, and Robers (1987), who noted that "communication is the fundamental action which both expresses and determines the subjective experience of romantic love" (Marston et al., p. 392). Marston et al. used interviews and qualitative analyses and from these determined categories that encompassed people's most frequent communicative strategies of love both toward their partner and from their partner. The most frequent communications toward the partner were saying "I love you," doing things for the partner, being supportive and understanding, touching the partner, and simply spending time together. The categories of most frequent communications from the partner were quite similar. Although all these behaviors would not necessarily be thought of as communication (e.g., spending time together), they managed to communicate love from one partner to the other.

These approaches to love offer alternative perspectives to therapists who are seeking ways of construing clients' intimate relationships. Therapists respect diversity in couples and do not want to force their own constructions of love on their clients. Thus, rather than imposing a one-size-fits-all love perspective, couple and family therapists may well want several approaches from which to choose. An additional approach offering multidimensionality is that of the Love Styles.

THE LOVE STYLES

Sociologist John Alan Lee (e.g., 1973) did extensive research over a number of years, reading a variety of literature and interviewing many people about their romantic love relationships. He eventually proposed a theory of love that had six major love styles, three primary ones (Eros, Ludus, Storge) and three secondary ones (Pragma, Mania, Agape) that were combinations of the primaries. He visualized these love styles in terms of a color wheel, using the color wheel as an analogy to love, with both colors and love having primary and secondary features. He also used the wheel as an example of "equality" of love styles, just as there is "equality" of colors. In the same sense that colors are not right or wrong but only preferred or not preferred, so are love styles not wrong or right but simply preferred differentially by people. As noted later, however, some of the love styles are more congruent with satisfaction and commitment than are others.

Lee viewed each secondary style as a compound of two of the primary styles; however, research based on Lee's work has most typically considered the love styles as six separate styles or attitudes. Although people have characteristics of more than one love style, it is most vivid to describe the love styles as I do below, as though someone were a certain type of lover. These characterizations are drawn in large measure from Romantic Love (S. Hendrick & Hendrick, 1992).

The Eros lover is characterized by passion, though a passion broader than just a physical one. The Eros lover tends to be drawn toward a preferred physical type, and thus there may be an immediate recognition or "aha" when meeting a potential love partner. This lover is intense and wants to be involved with a partner on all levels, becoming physically affectionate (and intimate), talking for hours, and learning all about the partner. The Eros lover is fully and openly "present," is self-confident and trusting, and balances intensity with an appropriate sense of boundaries.

The Ludus lover, in contrast, is not interested in intensity, but rather experiences love as a game to be played for mutual enjoyment but not necessarily with any serious outcome in mind. Ludic lovers do not have a preferred physical type. Although ludic lovers may be in a partnered relationship with someone, ludic love is best played with several partners at a time, so that different people may be enjoyed for different qualities, in different activities, with no one person or relationship taking precedence over another. A ludic lover may hurt a partner inadvertently, but the goal is to enjoy relationships with a variety of people, with everyone having fun and no one getting hurt.

The Storge lover is someone who builds a love relationship on a strong base of friendship. The goal is:

A companionable, secure, trusting relationship with a partner who is similar in terms of attitudes and values. This similarity is much more important to Storge than physical appearance or sexual satisfaction because this orientation to love is more likely to seek long-term commitment rather than short-term excitement. (S. Hendrick & Hendrick, 1992, p. 65)

The Pragma lover is all that the name implies, including practical and pragmatic. A Pragma lover may or may not have a preferred physical type, but he or she will surely have a virtual (or actual) shopping list of qualities sought in a partner. This type of lover may profit from working with a matchmaker or a computer dating service, in which inappropriate relationship candidates will be screened out. "The pragmatic lover isn't looking for great excitement and drama, but, rather, for a suitable partner with whom a satisfying, rewarding life can be built" (S. Hendrick & Hendrick, 1992, p. 66).

The Mania lover is also aptly characterized by the love style name, in that emotional highs and lows, as well as dependence, possessiveness, jealousy, and insecurity are typically present. A manic lover yearns for a love relationship but finds it elusive, because she or he seems compelled to push for commitment from a partner, does not really trust the commitment even if it is forthcoming, and is always afraid that the partner will find someone else. Another aspect of Mania is physical symptoms, such as difficulty eating or sleeping. Overall, the Mania lover always seems to be looking for the cloud around the silver lining.

Finally, the Agape lover is the rarest type of lover. Agape is characterized by altruism, such that the partner's welfare is more important than one's own welfare, and what one can give in a relationship is more important than what one gets. Indeed, Agape has much in common with compassionate love. The idealism of Agape means that there is no one preferred physical type in a partner, and indeed, sensuality and sexuality are likely to be much less important than more spiritual qualities. Although pure Agape is unlikely to exist on the physical plane of this world, agapic qualities are extremely important as relationships encounter inevitable ups and downs.

It is easy to characterize the love styles in rich, descriptive terms, and people who hear about them seem to grasp and personalize them immediately. The love styles go beyond limited descriptions of love to offer a truly multidimensional representation of what romantic love can be. Considerable research has built on Lee's theory.

RESEARCH ON LOVE STYLES

Building on Lee's theory and an initial scale developed to assess it (Hatkoff & Lasswell, 1979; Lasswell & Lasswell, 1976), we developed and refined a 42-item measure of the six major love styles, with seven items measuring each of the six love styles on a Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree metric. A first significant scaling article was published in 1986 (C. Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986). A partner-specific version (all items reworded to refer to a specific love relationship rather than having a mixture of general items and relationship-specific items) was published in 1990 (C. Hendrick & Hendrick). Finally, a 24-item short form was developed and published in 1998 (C. Hendrick, Hendrick, & Dicke, 1998). All versions of the scale are psychometrically sound (C. Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986, 1990; C. Hendrick et al., 1998) and can be used with equal confidence. Versions of the scale have been translated into a number of languages (e.g., French, German, Swedish, Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese, Japanese, Italian, Indonesian, Malaysian). The short form is likely the most appropriate one for use in therapy, simply because of its length. Sample items from the Love Attitudes Scale: Short Form include:

Eros: My partner and I have the right physical "chemistry" between us.

Ludus: I believe that what my partner doesn't know about me won't hurt him/her.

Storge: Our love is the best kind because it grew out of a long friendship.

Pragma: A main consideration in choosing my partner was how he/she would reflect on my family.

Mania: When my partner doesn't pay attention to me, I feel sick all over.

Agape: I would rather suffer myself than let my partner suffer.

Research conducted with the scale has explored a number of aspects of love styles. I discuss love styles and personality briefly, followed by love and issues of demographic diversity (religion, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender). Studies presented typically utilized college student samples of several hundred individuals, most of whom answered questions in reference to a current romantic partner or recent romantic partner. Individuals' own love styles were related to other variables, including satisfaction. Next, I discuss in greater detail research on partnered couples (either dating or married, as indicated), emphasizing the prediction of relationship satisfaction. Finally, I present recent work on links between love and sex and on respect in romantic relationships (samples for these latter two topics include college students typically in romantic relationships).

Personality

Linking love styles to personality has yielded some interesting findings. Self-esteem, considered an aspect of personality, has been related positively to passionate love and negatively to manic love (C. Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986), consistent with Eros as an intense but ego-secure love style and Mania as a jealous, worried, and less secure love style. The love styles have also been related to self-disclosure (Self Disclosure Index; Miller, Berg, & Archer, 1983) and sensation-seeking (S. Hendrick & Hendrick, 1987c). For example, passionate love was related positively to self-disclosure, but game-playing love was related negatively. Yet game-playing was positively related to several dimensions of sensation-seeking, a finding consistent with other research (Richardson, Medvin, & Hammock, 1988). Woll (1989) also found links between love styles and personality, as did Hall, Hendrick, and Hendrick (1991), who used the Repertory Test, based on Kelly's (1955) Personal Construct Theory.

More recently, White (2003) related the love styles to aspects of personality as measured by the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (Form S; Costa & McRae, 1985, 1992). The NEOPI-R is widely used and measures five factors: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. Several of the factors were correlated significantly with several of the love styles. Eros (passion) was negatively related to Neuroticism and positively related to Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. Storge (friendship) was related similarly, but with no correlation with Agreeableness. Ludus (game-playing) was related positively to Neuroticism and negatively to Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. Pragma (practicality) was related negatively to Openness but positively to Conscientiousness. Mania (possessiveness) was related positively to Neuroticism, and Agape (altruism) was unrelated to the factors. These findings do indicate some links between love styles and personality, particularly Neuroticism.

Love Styles in Diverse Couples

Religion is an important consideration for many people, and, although we have not found people of different religious backgrounds to differ on their love styles, we found that a person's degree of religiosity (how religious a person considered her or himself to be) was important. More religious persons were more endorsing of friendship, practical, and altruistic love and less endorsing of game-playing love than were less religious persons (S. Hendrick & Hendrick, 1987b).

Race/ethnicity is an emerging focus for us. In a study of Mexican American (both bicultural and Hispanic oriented) and Anglo married couples, Contreras, Hendrick, and Hendrick (1996) found only modest love and sexual attitude differences between the couples. The three groups did not differ in relationship satisfaction and were also similar in passionate love, friendship love, and altruistic love. Murstein, Merighi, and Vyse (1991) found some similarities between French and American college students, although French students were more altruistic, and American students were more manic and friendship oriented. (For other cross-cultural research with the love styles, see Cho & Cross, 1995; Goodwin & Findlay, 1997; Sprecher et al., 1994).

Lesbian and gay couples and families are important in their own right, and such relationships are increasingly the focus of research (for reviews see Patterson, 2000; Peplau & Spaulding, 2000). They also offer relationship researchers a way to study the intersection of relationship processes and gender. Our own research in that area (Adler, Hendrick, & Hendrick, 1987) assessed gay males and heterosexual males in two locations, New York and West Texas. Homosexual and heterosexual men endorsed love styles very similarly, although there were some interesting geographical differences. Texas participants were more manic than New York participants, and gay men in New York were significantly less agapic than gay men in Texas or heterosexual men in Texas or New York. Overall, as Peplau and Spaulding (2000) concluded, "Efforts to apply basic relationship theories to same-sex couples have been largely successful. There is much commonality among the issues facing all close relationships, regardless of the sexual orientation of the partners" (p. 123).

Gender

Gender is very important in the context of close relationships, and both gender in referencing close relationships differences and gender similarities inform our understanding of how women and men relate intimately. Gender was of interest in our very earliest research on the love styles (C. Hendrick, Hendrick, Foote, & Slapion-Foote, 1984), when gender differences appeared on more than one-half the then 54 items on the love scale. In this (C. Hendrick et al., 1984) and later research, men were always more game-playing, whereas women were typically more friendship oriented, practical, and manic (e.g., C. Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986). Men and women did not typically differ on passionate or altruistic love. Research using the shortened form of the Love Attitudes Scale, however, has found women continuing to be more oriented to friendship and practicality than men, and men to be more in agreement with (or at least less in disagreement with) game-playing than women (C. Hendrick et al., 1998). But women more than men appear now to endorse passionate love, and men more than women consistently endorse altruistic love, with the findings for possessive love varying across studies (C. Hendrick et al.). It is interesting to note, however, although women and men may differ somewhat in their average scores on the love scales, the correlations between the love scales and other measures, including relationship satisfaction, are very similar (S. Hendrick & Hendrick, 1995). Much more fanfare typically accompanies gender differences than gender similarities, yet women and men do not in fact come from different planets. Rather, they come from something like different apartments in the same apartment building. Although it is frequently partner differences that bring couples into therapy-and it has been tempting to attribute those differences to gender-many such differences are based on "person" rather than "gender." Work with gay and lesbian couples indicates that same-sex couples must deal with issues of communication, conflict, division of labor, and so on, just as other-sex couples do.

In referencing close relationships research, Johnson (2003) noted that "Research has confirmed . . . that in negative marital interactions men tend to withdraw while women demand" (p. 178). However, more recent relationships research indicates that the demand-withdraw sequence is based not on gender, but on which partner seeks change in the relationship (Klinetob & Smith, 1996; Sagrestano, Christensen, & Heavey, 1998). Earlier, it was thought that women always demanded and men always withdrew, but it turns out that this occurred because women were typically the ones wanting change, and men were the ones resisting it. It now appears that whichever partner desires change "demands," and whichever partner resists change "withdraws." It is easy to assign gendered explanations for phenomena that turn out to be about something other than gender.

Couples

Research on the love styles has been fruitful in so far as they relate to various personality and demographic characteristics. More relevant to couple and family researchers and therapists, however, is love research in couple relationships. This section gives somewhat more detailed information about several couple studies. (In these studies, individual partner scores rather than summed couple scores were typically used.)

Our first study with couples involved 57 college dating couples (S. Hendrick, Hendrick, & Adler, 1988), and we looked at similarity between partners as well as prediction of both satisfaction and staying together versus breaking up. Relational partners were significantly similar on Eros (r = .56), Storge (r = .40), Mania (r = .33), and Agape (r = .26). Partners were also similar in relationship satisfaction (> .60 on each of two measures). In regression analyses, using the love scales and self-esteem to predict satisfaction, for men, Eros was a positive predictor and Ludus a negative predictor of satisfaction (self-esteem was also a positive predictor). For women, Eros was a positive predictor of satisfaction, and both Ludus and Mania were negative predictors. Using a smaller subsample of 30 couples contacted 2 months later, we examined the characteristics that differentiated couples who stayed together (23 couples) from those who broke up (7 couples). "Couples who remained together were more erotic, less ludic, more disclosing, higher in self-esteem, higher in commitment, higher in investment, and higher in relationship satisfaction than were the couples breaking up" (S. Hendrick et al., 1988, p. 986).

As mentioned briefly, Contreras et al. (1996) assessed community married couples (84 in all) recruited through network sampling. Thirty couples were Anglo American and 54 couples were Mexican American. Based on scores on the Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans (ARSMA; Cuellar, Harris, & Jasso, 1980), the Mexican American couples were further divided into two groups, bicultural (feeling comfortable in both Anglo and Mexican cultures) and Hispanic-oriented (feeling more comfortable in the Mexican culture). When compared, the three ethnic groups differed on three of the six love styles (Ludus, Pragma, Mania), but only for Ludus did the Anglo couples differ from both Hispanic groups. Hispanic couples disagreed less with game-playing than did Anglo couples. For Pragma, Hispanic-oriented couples were more endorsing than the other two groups, and for Mania, bicultural couples were slightly more endorsing than Anglo couples. Overall, the groups were quite similar in their love styles, strongly agreeing with passionate, friendship-oriented, and altruistic aspects of love. And when using the love styles to predict relationship satisfaction for the groups (Anglo American, Bicultural, and Hispanic-oriented wives and husbands), "Passionate love was the most consistent predictor of marital satisfaction for both wives and husbands, across all ethnic categories" (Contreras et al., 1996, p. 412). Standardized Beta values ranged from .31 to .65 for Eros, and variance accounted for from 40% to 65% of the variance for the six groups (Anglo American, Bicultural, and Hispanic-oriented wives and husbands). The other love styles were less consistent predictors, with Ludus a negative predictor of satisfaction for Hispanic-oriented husbands, Storge a positive predictor for Anglo American husbands, Pragma a negative predictor for Bicultural wives and Anglo-American husbands, Mania a negative predictor for Anglo American husbands, and Agape a positive predictor for Anglo American and Hispanic-oriented wives and Hispanic-oriented husbands.

In another study, Sokolski surveyed 160 married couples in which one or both partners were medical, law, or graduate students (Sokolski & Hendrick, 1999). Although the focus of the study was on dual-career and family work issues, love styles were of interest also. Marital partners showed strong similarity on most of the love styles (especially Eros, Ludus, Storge, and Pragma), and three love styles were associated positively with relationship satisfaction for both husbands and wives, respectively (Eros [r = .60 and .63], Storge [r = .25 and .17], and Agape [r = .31 and .29]). Ludus (r = -.49 and -.45) was associated negatively with satisfaction. Hierarchical regressions used commitment in the first step, spousal support in the second step, and Eros, Ludus, and sexual satisfaction in the third step. "The final model indicated that all five variables were significant predictors of satisfaction: Commitment,[beta] = .35; spousal support, [beta] = .71; passionate love (Eros), [beta] = .18; game-playing love (Ludus),[beta] = -.17; and sexual satisfaction, [beta] = .13 (all significant atp

Love styles and communication were also of central interest in a study by Meeks, Hendrick, and Hendrick (1998), in which 140 dating college couples filled out measures of the following constructs: Love styles; communication (both own self-disclosure and perceived partner self-disclosure); perspective-taking (both own and perceived partner); conflict tactics (both own and perceived partner); and perceived relational competence of the partner. Partners were relatively similar on a number of constructs, including four of the six love styles; and several constructs were related to relationship satisfaction, the dependent variable of interest. In the final regression analysis (using both self scores and perceived partner scores) predicting satisfaction, the significant predictors (in order) were positive love (a combination of Eros, Storge, and Agape; standardized [beta] = .63), the absence of game-playing love (standardized [beta] = -.17), the perception that the partner could take one's perspective (standardized [beta] = . 12), and the absence of one's own hostile conflict tactics (standardized [beta] = -.09), accounting for 58% of the variance in satisfaction.

Finally, taking a more life-span approach, Montgomery and Sorell (1997) assessed love styles and related constructs (250 adults) in four different age groups, including (a) young (college-aged), never-married adults, (b) married persons under 30 and without children, (c) married persons age 24-50 with children still at home, and (d) married persons age 50-70 with no children remaining in the home. These persons were recruited from community events, churches, and universities. There were a number of differences between the groups, with the greatest differences between the unmarried group and the three married groups. Major differences were that the unmarried persons reported greater game-playing and manic love and less altruistic love than did the married persons. Yet the groups did not differ in passionate love (typically ascribed to young people) or friendship-oriented love (typically ascribed to older people). This is consistent with our own findings that friendship in love is extremely important to young relational partners (S. Hendrick & Hendrick, 1993) and that passion in love is extremely important to older relational partners (Contreras et al., 1996). Montgomery and Sorell themselves noted that "Individuals throughout the life-stages of marriage consistently endorse the love attitudes involving passion, romance, friendship, and self-giving love" (p. 61).

Although the exploration of styles of loving and prediction of relationship satisfaction have been the major concentrations of this research program, we have also explored sexual attitudes within the context of intimate relationships fairly extensively. We have always felt that romantic, partnered love and sexuality (broadly construed) are linked together for most partners in intimate relationships, yet love and sex are for the most part studied separately (S. Hendrick & Hendrick, 1987a). Our beliefs that love and sex, as well as other factors, are all part of what makes relationships satisfying and continuing over time drew us more recently into some new research directions, which I describe briefly.

RECENT RESEARCH ON LOVE AND ITS CORRELATES

Although scholars may study love and sex separately, people who answer researchers' questions seem quite able to connect the two. When asked to write a response to the instruction: "Please tell us how love and sex (meaning any type of physical affection) are related in your relationship" (S. Hendrick & Hendrick, 2002), approximately 70 of 75 participants (upper-level college students) were able to write eloquent responses, ranging from a few sentences to pages. These written accounts were coded into 27 themes, which then were converted to item format. Several studies and multiple analyses later, we had developed a psychometrically sound 17-item scale called the Perceptions of Love and Sex Scale, with subscales reflecting four underlying themes: Love is most important; sex demonstrates love; love comes before sex; and sex is declining. Although the four factors were related to a number of relationship characteristics, including the love styles, we thought that one of the most important findings from the study was the ease and clarity with which people linked love and sex.

We are currently engaged in developing measures of respect in romantic relationships: Respect for one's partner and perceived partner respect for oneself. Respect is an important aspect of relationships-one of the top six characteristics in a successful marriage-according to some married couples (Sokolski & Hendrick, 1999). And yet little close relationship research has focused on respect (for exceptions see Feeney, Noller, & Ward, 1997; Frei & Shaver, 2002). Our concept of respect is based on six elements of respect provided by Lawrence-Lightfoot (2000) in her biographical accounts of people who live out their personal and professional lives as exemplars of respect for others. The elements include empowerment, healing, dialogue, curiosity, self-respect, and attention. Our hope is to clarify the role that respect has in intimate, partnered relationships and to better understand how it relates to love, satisfaction, gender, and other relational characteristics.

RELEVANCE OF CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS RESEARCH TO COUPLE THERAPY

In her review of effectiveness research on marital problems, Johnson (2003) points out that "Researchers need the 'white heat of relevance' . . . to keep them on track and tell them what matters" (p. 183). I agree completely. That is precisely why my collaboration with Clyde Hendrick, a social psychologist, has been so satisfying. He often asks the distal "Why?" questions, more typical of a close relationships researcher. I often ask the proximal "What does it mean and how can we use it?" questions, more typical of a couple and family therapist. Thus, next I offer a hypothetical conversation between a couple and family therapist and a close relationships researcher; they are discussing a clinical case.

Case Example

Therapist: I have a couple I want to talk with you about. I've been seeing them for about a month. They are in their early thirties and have two school-aged children. They seem to be stuck, and I'm not exactly sure why. There's no infidelity or abuse, as far as I can tell, but their sexual relationship has declined. They argue a lot about parenting-about everything, for that matter. They came in because they have grown so far apart that they have begun to discuss the possibility of separating. I've tried the usual things-they've had scheduled "dates," set aside talking time in the evening, done positive behaviors for each other on a daily basis-but they still aren't connecting emotionally. And they're still having too many fights and not enough sex. I'd really like to get your perspective on them.

Researcher: I've been working for a while with a measure of love called the Love Attitudes Scale. It is short and easy to take, and it gives scores on six different love styles. Husbands and wives may differ on the scale, and certain love styles are strongly linked to relationship satisfaction, so it might be useful.

Therapist: Sounds good. I'll get the materials from you and ask them to take it. Then I'll talk with you about the results before I talk with them.

The therapist gives the partners the Love Attitudes Scale, scores the scales, and then consults with her colleague. The following is a partial transcript of her next session with the couple.

Therapist: So, how did things go this week?

Kathy: I've been feeling a little better. I guess that last week when we talked about our family backgrounds and how we first met, it helped me remember how in love we used to be. But that kind of made me sad, too, because we don't feel that way now.

Matt: Speak for yourself, Kathy. I love you just as much as I did when we first got married, even more. It's you who has changed. You're so negative.

Kathy: I'm not negative. But you can't tell me that our relationship is the same as when we were newlyweds. Now we've got the kids, and all the other responsibilities. And you don't seem to get that. You are so possessive of my time; you always want more than I can give. And when I can't do something you want me to do, you pout or get sick or hover over me. I feel smothered instead of loved!

Matt: Everyone and everything else comes first for you-you don't even have time for me. When I walk into the house, you barely say hello. We hardly even have sex anymore.

Kathy: Whose fault is that? I miss it as much as you do.

Therapist: Holds up her hand: Hold that thought! This is the perfect time for us to talk about how you two came out on that love questionnaire you took during the session last week. Remember, you both filled out the Love Attitudes Scale, and then I gave you some information about the love styles. I consulted with one of my colleagues, and I want to talk with you about your results. They fit right in with what you two are talking about.

Kathy and Matt each look at their results, including the three-point code of the subscales they most agreed with. Kathy's code is E/S/M, meaning that Eros (passionate love) is her strongest scale, followed by Storge (friendship love) and Mania (possessive, dependent love). Matt is an M/E/A, meaning that Mania is his strongest scale, followed by Eros and Agape (altruistic love).

Therapist: How does this fit for you? Kathy? Matt?

Kathy: Last week I read the sheet you gave us about these love styles. Based on that, if I can remember, these types do fit, especially Eros, the first one. I am a hopeless romantic-I know it. Although the friendship part of our marriage is very important to me too, I want that spark, that zing of Eros. The Mania part fits, but I wish it didn't. I know that's a leftover from my childhood, but I still can hook into that, especially when I don't feel close to Matt. I think he's the sexiest husband in the world, but we just aren't connecting.

Therapist: Matt, what are your thoughts and feelings?

Matt: I feel sad when Kathy says we aren't connecting-but at some level, I know she's right. It seems like I've got the life I wanted, but it isn't exactly what I thought it would be. The kids are wonderful, but I never feel as close to Kathy as I want to feel. I can't believe I scored so high on possessive, dependent love-but than again, I'm not surprised. I want her to pay attention to me and be affectionate, and I go nuts when she's not. I don't remember feeling this way when we were first together, but I guess we just focused on each other all the time. I'm sure this is related to my mother's dying when I was 10. When I don't feel totally secure, I'm afraid that Kathy is going to leave me too. My head says she's not, but my heart is scared. What I really want is to figure all this out and get back to us being happy.

Kathy: Matt, I want to get back to being happy too. The kids, and our work, and our life together keep us very busy, but I know that we still need us. I need us as much as you do. You used to be much more supportive. But now I often feel smothered by you, or else that you don't trust me. And when you are upset, you take it out on me and the kids. I can't stand your pulling at me; sometimes I feel like I'm being pulled apart.

Therapist: Everything you are saying is consistent with your love styles and with how you have talked since you started marriage counseling. What I hear from Kathy isn't really dissatisfaction with you, Matt, or with your marriage. It is discouragement with the conflict and distance that are happening for the two of you right now-and also a longing for some of the magic that you had when you first met. Kathy, I see you wanting to tell Matt that you're not going away, that you're with him for the duration. But you're afraid to commit to that with all the conflict and Matt's acting out.

Matt, I don't hear you disagreeing with Kathy. But you keep wanting to remind her that you have a good life together. You seem to be afraid to admit that your marriage needs some help for fear that Kathy will want to change everything-or even leave. You need to let go a little, but the more unloved you feel, the more frightened you get, and the more you hold on for dear life.

Kathy: I don't want to leave. I just want things to change. Matt, you can trust me. There's no one else I want-I just want you. But I want the loving you, not the angry or clingy you.

Matt: That's really what I want too. I don't like being angry-or clingy. I know you love me, but it still helps to hear you say it.

Therapist: Part of what needs to happen is a change in how you think and talk about your relationship. And the other part is actually changing some behaviors. Kathy, if Matt is being demanding at a particular time, you can ask him to chill and be more patient. But you can also respond warmly by giving him a quick hug or telling him you love him even if you don't have time for him at that moment. He may be a manic lover at times, but he also has a strong component of passionate and altruistic love, and these are aspects that can be nurtured by you, as well as by Matt himself. He wants to be included, but he also wants to be helpful. So if you two are more of a team in terms of childcare and even housework, rather than having you running things and Matt feeling left out, that will help things a lot.

Matt, you may need to get a little pushy in helping Kathy-she's used to doing everything herself. But push nicely! We'll need to talk more about your mother's death and how that influenced your fear of being abandoned again, as well as talk about where Kathy's Mania comes from, but in the meantime, work on your trust of Kathy when she says that she loves you. I believe she does. Each of you wants your togetherness, but you want it in your own way on your own time. Kathy, if you could magically have the changes you want in your marriage, what would some of them be?

Kathy: I'd like Matt to be less angry and possessive. Then I'd really like to go off by ourselves for a weekend and leave the kids with my parents. And I'd like to cuddle in bed before we go to sleep at night. I like the idea of Matt and I being more of a team; I'm tired of being in charge.

Therapist: Matt, what about you? If you could have what you want, what would it be?

Matt: I think the things that Kathy suggests would be great-I'm up for all of them. I will really try to work on my anger and fear. I guess that I'd really like Kathy to seem happier to see me when I get home from work. And if that cuddling progresses into sex a little more often, that would be okay with me. (Kathy laughs.)

Therapist: You two are starting to talk very constructively, and we can follow this up with some specific behaviors to work on with each other. You have already named several. What is really so important is that you are beginning to understand more about where the other person is coming from and finding out that you are not really so far apart. Problems in a marriage are like a crack in a wall; if you don't repair the crack, it widens and widens until the wall breaks down. You two have started the repair process just in time.

This dialogue presents part of a full therapy session, and a lot of information is compressed into just a few interchanges. Nevertheless, it illustrates how as therapists we are always searching for entry points, for things to tag, for doors to open just enough so that we can connect with our clients and connect them to each other. I have found the love styles approach extremely useful in my clinical work.

Other Love Approaches Applied to Therapy

The approaches to love research discussed earlier are also applicable to couple therapy. For example, Aron and Aron's (1996) self-expansion approach could be used in therapy, although not necessarily with the case example couple. In a common therapy situation, a client loves someone, often a former partner, who does not reciprocate the love. Self-expansion, ideally a mutual process, can explain the client's inclusion of the former partner into his or her psyche, even though the former partner has excluded the client. This is "unilateral self-expansion," not necessarily a desirable thing, and the metaphor might be helpful in aiding a client to withdraw from the former partner, excluding that partner from the client's "Self."

Sternberg's (1986, 1987) Triangular Theory of Love offers three components (intimacy, passion, commitment) and eight types of love. The three components might be used with our case example couple, noting that Kathy is high in her desire for passion, Matt is high in his desire for intimacy, and both are heavily committed to their marriage. These concepts are easily grasped and might help our couple learn positive words for their differences and similarities.

Finally, the Love Ways approach by Marston et al. (1987) emphasizes how partners communicate love to each other. Strategies rated as extremely important were such things as saying "I love you" and touching the partner (highly desired by both Kathy and Matt) as well as doing things for the partner and being supportive and understanding (both areas of needed growth for Matt). If each partner is attuned to how the other partner is showing love-and is also attuned to how they themselves are showing love-it is likely that love communication will increase.

Close relationships research also has many other theories, strategies, and measures to appeal to couple and family therapists. For example, communication is a core issue for many couples. The Self-Disclosure Index (Miller et al., 1983) is a 10-item measure that assesses self-disclosure on a variety of topics (e.g., "my worst fears"). It can be used to measure own disclosure, partner disclosure, perceived partner disclosure, and so on. Partners can use their scale results to meta-communicate in session-in other words, communicate about their own disclosure or failure to disclose. The therapist can help them discuss the process of communicating rather than deal with specific content issues, at least initially.

Another useful measure is the Relationship Assessment Scale (S. Hendrick, 1988), a 7-item measure of satisfaction. This measure correlates .80 with the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976) and is becoming more widely used in both research and therapy. One advantage of the scale is that because of the wording, it can be used with dating, cohabiting, married, and lesbian and gay couples. Its brevity allows for frequent use in session, much like a depression measure can be used weekly or biweekly to track the course of a client's (or couple's) progress.

Measures of such constructs as respect, trust, sexual beliefs, commitment, and so on are also available for clinical use (see Duck, 1988, 1997; C. Hendrick & Hendrick, 2000).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This article presents my attempt to acquaint couple and family therapists with the growing field of close relationships, a field that has much to offer therapists. In addition to the topics already discussed, close relationships work on physical attractiveness and mate choice (e.g., Cunningham, Roberts, Barbee, Druen, & Wu, 1995), attributions in couples (e.g., Bradbury & Fincham, 1992), as well as other topics are very relevant to practicing therapists. Therapists, in turn, can collaborate with researchers, helping them to retain the "white heat of relevance" (Johnson, 2003) so necessary for meaningful research. For example, a therapist might ask, "Can the love styles be changed?" Let us say that the male partner in a heterosexual couple seeking therapy has Ludus as a predominant love style. The therapist might let him know that ludic behaviors are predictive of dissatisfaction and potential breakup, so if he loves his partner and wants the relationship to continue, he can make some choices about modifying his ludic tendencies, trying to be more honest and disclosing, and satisfying his needs for novelty and sensation through sports/exercise, hobbies, and so on. A female partner who is heavily pragmatic might be encouraged to develop the more passionate and altruistic parts of her love orientation to balance out her practicality. Still other concepts, such as respect, could play into gender-based struggles in a traditional couple in which the wife is trying to establish greater freedom and independence. A husband who is unlikely to respond positively to the accusation of being sexist may be more likely to "hear" that his wife does not feel respected by him. There are potentially few topics in close relationships research that would not be enriched by questions from a marriage and family therapist.

I am a close relationships researcher and a couple/family therapist. I believe in the richness of both areas and in the ability of the professionals in them to be collaborative and thereby generate better research and therapy than could be achieved without such collaboration. Although my intention has been to introduce close relationships research to the marriage and family therapists not already familiar with it, most close relationships researchers just as surely need to be introduced to marriage and family therapy. For example, Willi and his colleagues (Riehl-Emde, Thomas, & Willi, 2003; Willi, 1997) have conducted research on love but seem largely unaware of the extensive close relationships literature on the topic. In turn, however, Willi's work is not familiar to me, or I would guess, to most close relationships love researchers. So the "education" process needs to flow in both directions.

To foster this process, scholars from different departments can collaborate as well as seek collaboration from practitioners in their community. Practitioners can also actively seek out contacts at local colleges/universities. In addition, relevant journals can invilc contributions from other areas, just as the current article was invited. The JMFT and Personal Relationships and the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships might print Tables of Contents for each other's future issues in the back of journals or might invite special issues that include contributions from both relationship researchers and marriage and family therapists. Ultimately, I want both researchers and therapists to recognize "where" each group deals with couples. We-researchers, teachers of therapists, and therapists-are all traveling companions of the couples we work with. We simply meet them at different times and in different ways as they take their relational journeys.

REFERENCES

Adler, N. L., Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1986). Male sexual preference and attitudes toward love and sexuality. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 12(2), 27-30.

Aron, E. N., & Aron, A. (1996). Love and expansion of the self: The state of the model. Personal Relationships, 3, 45-58.

Berscheid, E. (1999). The greening of relationship science. American Psychologist, 54, 260-266.

Berscheid, E., & Hatfield, E. (1978). Interpersonal attraction (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1992). Attributions and behavior in marital interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 613-628.

Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. (1999). Clinical handbook of attachment: Theory, research and clinical applications. New York: Guilford Press.

Cho, W., & Cross, S. E. (1995). Taiwanese love styles and their association with self-esteem and relationship quality. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 121, 283-309.

Contreras, R., Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1996). Perspectives on marital love and satisfaction in Mexican American and Anglo-American couples. Journal of Counseling and Development, 74, 408-415.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Cuellar, I., Harris, L. C., & Jasso, R. (1980). An acculturation scale for Mexican American normal and clinical populations. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Science, 2, 199-217.

Cunningham, M. R., Roberts, A. R., Barbee, A. P., Druen, P. B., & Wu, C. H. (1995). "Their ideas of beauty are, on the whole, the same as ours": Consistency and variability in the cross-cultural perception of female physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 261-279.

Duck, S. (Ed.). (1988). Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and interventions. New York: Wiley.

Duck, S. (Ed.). (1997). Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and interventions (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Feeney, J. A., & Noller, P. (1996). Adult attachment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Feeney, J. A., Noller, P., & Ward, C. (1997). In R. J. Sternberg & M. Hojjat (Eds.), Satisfaction in close relationships (pp. 160-189). New York: Guilford Press.

Fehr, B. (1988). Prototype analysis of the concepts of love and commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 557-579.

Fehr, B. (1993). How do I love thee? Let me consult my prototype. In S. Duck (Ed.), Individuals in relationships (pp. 87-120). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Fehr. B. (1994). Prototype-based assessment of laypeople's views of love. Personal Relationships, 1, 309-331.

Fehr, B., & Russell, J. A. (1991). The concept of love viewed from a prototype perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 425-438.

Frei, J. R., & Shaver, P. R. (2002). Respect in close relationships: Prototype definition, self-report assessment, and initial correlates. Personal Relationships, 9, 121-139.

Goodwin, R., & Findlay, R. (1997). "We were just fated together" ... Chinese love and the concept of yuan in England and Hong Kong. Personal Relationships, 4, 85-92.

Hall, A. G., Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1991). Personal construct systems and love styles. International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 4, 137-155.

Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1986). Measuring passionate love in intimate relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 9, 383-410.

Hatkoff, T. S., & Lasswell, T. E. (1979). Male-female similarities and differences in conceptualizing love. In M. Cook & G. Wilson (Eds.), Love and attraction: An international conference (pp. 221-227). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.

Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (1986). A theory and method of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 392-402.

Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (1990). A relationship specific version of the Love Attitudes Scale. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 239-254.

Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (Eds.). (2000). Close relationships: A sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hendrick, C., Hendrick, S. S., & Dicke, A. (1998). The Love Attitudes Scale: Short Form. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 137-142.

Hendrick, C., Hendrick, S., Foote, F. H., & Slapion-Foote, M. J. (1984). Do men and women love differently? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1, 177-195.

Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 93-98.

Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1987a). Love and sex attitudes: A close relationship. In W. H. Jones & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships (Vol. 1, pp. 141-169). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1987b). Love and sex attitudes and religious beliefs. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 5, 391-398.

Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1987c). Love and sexual attitudes, self-disclosure, and sensation seeking. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 281-297.

Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1992). Romantic love. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1993). Lovers as friends. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 459-466.

Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1995). Gender differences and similarities in sex and love. Personal Relationships, 2, 55-65.

Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (2000). Romantic love. In C. Hendrick & S. S. Hendrick (Eds.), Close relationships: A sourcebook (pp. 203-215). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (2002). Linking romantic love with sex: Development of the Perceptions of Love and Sex Scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 361-378.

Hendrick, S. S., Hendrick, C., & Adler, N. L. (1988). Romantic relationships: Love, satisfaction, and staying together. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 980-988.

Johnson, S. M. (2003). Marital problems. In D. H. Sprenkle (Ed.), Effectiveness research in marriage and family therapy. Alexandria, VA: American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy.

Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton.

Klinetob, N. A., & Smith, D. A. (1996). Demand-withdraw communication in marital interaction: Tests of interspousal contingency and gender role hypotheses. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 945-957.

Lasswell, T. E., & Lasswell, M. E. (1976). I love you but I'm not in love with you. Journal of Marriage and Family Counseling, 38, 211-224.

Lawrence-Lightfoot, S. (2000). Respect. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.

Lee, J. A. (1973). The colors of love: An exploration of the ways of loving. Don Mills, Ontario, Canada: New Press.

Marston, P. J., Hecht, M. L., & Robers, T. (1987). "True love ways": The subjective experience and communication of romantic love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 387-407.

Meeks, B. S., Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1998). Communication, love, and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 755-773.

Miller, L. C., Berg, J. H., & Archer, R. L. ( 1983). Openers: Individuals who elicit intimate self-disclosure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 1234-1244.

Montgomery, M. J., & Sorell, G. T. (1997). Differences in love attitudes across family life stages. Family Relations, 46, 55-61.

Murstein, B. I., Merighi, J. R., & Vyse, S. A. (1991). Love styles in the United States and France: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 10, 37-46.

Noller, P. (1996). What is this thing called love? Defining the love that supports marriage and family. Personal Relationships, 3, 97-115.

Patterson, C. J. (2000). Family relationships of lesbians and gay men. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1052-1069.

Peplau, L. A., & Spaulding, L. R. (2000). The close relationships of lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. In C. Hendrick & S. S. Hendrick, (Eds.), Close relationships: A sourcebook (pp. 111-123). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Richardson, D. R., Medvin, N., & Hammock, G. (1988). Love styles, relationship experience, and sensation seeking: A test of validity. Personality and Individual Differences, 9, 645-651.

Riehl-Emde, A., Thomas, V., & Willi, J. (2003). Love: An important dimension in marital research and therapy. Family Process, 42, 253-267.

Sagrestano, L. M., Christcnscn, A., & Heavey, C. L. (1998). Social influence techniques during marital conflict. Personal Relationships, 5, 75-89.

Sokolski, D. M., & Hendrick, S. S. (1999). Fostering marital satisfaction. Family Therapy, 26, 39-49.

Spanier, G. B. ( 1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and ihe Family, 38, 15-25.

Sprecher, S., Aron, A., Hatfield, E., Cortese, A., Potapova, E., & Levitskaya, A. ( 1994). Love: American style, Russian style, and Japanese style. Personal Relationships, 1, 349-369.

Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93, 119-135.

Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Liking versus loving: A comparative evaluation of theories. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 331-345.

White, J. K. (2003). The Five-factor model personality variables and relationship variables: A study of associations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University, Lubbock.

Willi, J. (1997). The significance of romantic love for marriage. Family Process, 36, 171-182.

Woll, S. B. (1989). Personality and relationship correlates of loving styles. Journal of Research in Personality, 23, 480-505.

Susan S. Hendrick

Texas Tech University

Susan, S. Hendrick, PhD, Department of Psychology, Texas Tech University.

Correspondence regarding this paper should be sent to Susan S. Hendrick, PhD, Department of Psychology, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas 79409-2051. E-mail: susan.hendrick@ttu.edu

Copyright American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy Jan 2004
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved