PsychologicalRepork, 1991, 68, 883-890.

O Psychological Reports 1991

LOVE STYLES AND LIFE SATISFACTION '

GEORGE YANCEY AND SARAH BERGLASS

Stephen E Austin State Universi~

Summary.-Previous studies by Hendrick and colleagues have uncovered male-

female differences in John Alan Lee's love styles. Specifically, females have tended to
be more storgic (friendship love), manic (possessive love), and pragmatic (logical love),
while males have tended to be more ludic (game-playing love). In this study, the utility
of the different love styles for life, work, and relationship satisfaction was examined
for each sex. For the 98 women in this study, the only love style that was positively
related to life satisfaction was agape (unselfish love), while the manic and ludic love
styles were negatively related to life satisfaction. For the 42 men in this study, storgic
and ludic love were both positively related co life satisfaction, while manic and prag-
matic love were negatively related to life satisfaction. Additional sex differences were
also noted. The findings suggested that the "double standard" is alive and well, at
least among the university students in this study.

While love has been postulated as being crucial for a host of desired
results such as happiness and life satisfaction, no one has conjectured which
styles of love are the most or the least effective for obtaining these desired
ends. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationshps between
different love styles and life satisfaction.
Sociologist John Alan Lee (1973, 1988) developed a theory of different
love styles. All love styles, according to Lee, are combinations of three pri-
mary styles. Lee used the Greek words eros, ludus, and storge to describe
and name these three primary styles. While the erotic lover desires a passion-
ate, intensely felt emotional love, the ludic lover views love as a game to be
played with many partners and little commitment, and the storgic lover pre-
fers slowly developing relationships that lead to lasting friendship. Like the
three primary colors, these three love styles can be combined to produce any
number of love styles. In response to the question, "How many colors of
love are there?" Lee answered, "As many as there are possible mixtures and
combinations, as in color itself" (Lee, 1988, p. 49). Lee examined three of
these combination styles-mania, agape, and pragma. The manic lover com-
bines erotic and ludic love to produce a possessive obsession toward the
beloved. The agapic lover combines erotic and storgic love to produce an
altruistic, selfless love. Lastly, the pragmatic lover combines storgic and ludic
love to produce a "shopping list" approach to love. In other words, the prag-
matic lover focuses on whether the prospective love object possesses the
appropriate job, age, religion, etc.

'Address correspondence to G. Yancey, Department of Psychology, Stephen F. Austin State

University, Nacogdoches, TX 75962.
884 G. YANCEY & S. BERGLASS

Although Lee suggests that people experience love in numerous and

"multicolored" ways, the question still remains as to whether some styles of
love are related to greater life satisfaction than are others.

Subjects
One hundred forty male (n = 42) and female (n = 78) undergraduate stu-
dents at a state university participated as subjects. Subjects received addi-
tional credit in their psychology classes in return for their participation.
Testing occurred in two sessions with approximately 70 subjects each.
Measures and Procedure
To assess the six love styles described by Lee (Storge, Agape, Mania,
Pragma, Ludus, Eros), subjects were administered the SAMPLE Profile de-
veloped by Laswell and Laswell (1776). SAMPLE is an acronym for the six
love styles. The SAMPLE Profile is a 50-question, true-false test. Scores for
each of the six scales are obtained by adding up the number of "true" re-
sponses for the questions designated under each scale. The raw scores for
each scale were converted to normative scores using LasweU and Laswell's
population norms.
Subjects responded to five questions relating to satisfaction by using a
5-point Likert scale ranging from very satisfied (5) to very dissatisfied (1).
The five satisfaction measures were life satisfaction, work satisfaction,
same-sex-friends satisfaction, opposite-sex-friends satisfaction, and romantic-
relationship satisfaction. Subjects also indicated their sex on their question-
naires.
Analyses
As Laswell and Laswell (1976) suggested, subjects who display consis-
tently high or consistently low scores in several scales may be reflecting a
liberal or conservative test-taking attitude rather than a specific style of lov-
ing. They advise individuals to give more credence to their relative scores
than to their absolute scores. Therefore, relative love-scale scores were used
instead of absolute normative scores. Relative love-scale scores were obtained
by first subtracting the mean of each subject's six norm scores from his norm
score for a particular love scale, and then dividing the remainder by the stan-
dard deviation of his six norm scores. The relationships between each of the
six love styles and each of the five satisfaction measures were then assessed
by using Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients. Independent t
tests were used to examine mean differences between men and women in
love styles and types of satisfaction. The relationships between each of the
six love styles and each of the five satisfaction measures were also examined
separately for men and women by computing Pearson coefficients for each
 LOVE STYLES AND LIFE SATISFACTION 885

sex. Fisher's r to z transformations (Hays, 1973, pp. 663-664) were then

used to examine whether the relationships between love styles and the satis-
faction measures were moderated by sex.
RESULTS
Two of the love styles, agape and storge, were positively related to
over-all life satisfaction. However, the best predictor, mania, was negatively
related to life satisfaction. The correlations between work satisfaction and
the six different love styles were d nonsignificant. The best predictors of
same-sex-friend satisfaction were storge, which was positively correlated, and
ludus, which was negatively correlated. Storge was also positively correlated
with opposite-sex-friend satisfaction, while mania was negatively correlated.
The best predictors of satisfaction with romantic relationships were agape,
which was positively correlated, and mania, which was negatively correlated.
These results are depicted in Table 1. Similar results were found when abso-
lute love scores were used instead of relative love scores.

TABLE 1
LOVEAND SATISFACTION:
PEARSON (N = 140)
CORRELA~ONS

Love Styles Satisfaction M SD

Life Work Same Opposite Romantic
Sex Sex

Storgic .17* .13 .15* 21" .07 -. 1 10

Agapic .20* .02 .08 09 .21* -.2 10
Manic -.30* -.I3 -.I1 - 14' -.24* .2 8
Pragmatic -.03 .07 -.04 -.04 -.01 -. 2 .9
Ludic -.08 -.08 -.15* -.I3 -.OG -. 1 .9
Erotic -.01 -.03 .04 -.02 -.OO .3 .8
M 3.9 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.7
SD .9 1.0 .9 .9 1.2
* p c .05.

These results are not completely consistent with earlier research. I n ex-
amining correlations with life satisfaction, the negative correlation between
mania and life satisfaction was consistent with Hendrick and Hendrick's
(1986) finding that subjects with high mania scores felt less positive about
themselves and Hendrick, Hendrick, and Adler's (1988) finding that subjects
who scored high on mania scored lower on a measure of self-esteem which
assessed self-feelings and present happiness. However, the positive correla-
tions that storge and agape had with life satisfaction were not consistent
with Hendrick and Hendrick's (1986) findings that neither storge nor agape

'The authors have available correlation tables with absolute love scores used to compute the cor-
relations instead of relative love scores. In addition, the authors will be glad to make available
any other data or materials.
886 G. YANCEY & S. BERGLASS

were related to feeling positive about oneself. Also, Hendrick and Hendrick
(1986) found that subjects who scored high on eros felt more positive about
themselves, but eros and life satisfaction were not correlated in this study.
I n examining the correlations with romantic satisfaction, further incon-
sistencies with past research were found. Hendrick, Hendrick, and Adler
(1988) found a strong positive correlation between eros and satisfaction with
- -

one's dating relationship and a strong negative correlation between ludus and
dating-relationship satisfaction. In the current study, eros and ludus were un-
related to romantic satisfaction. The earlier study involved dating couples
while in the current study subjects were not asked to indicate whether they
were currently in a relationship. The different findings of these two studies
suggest that being or not being in a relationship might be an important mod-
erator of the relationships between love styles and satisfaction with a
relationshp.
No significant sex differences in love styles were uncovered, although
the directions of the differences between love styles were in line with those
of two earlier studies (Hendrick, Hendrick, Foote, & Slapion-Foote, 1984;
Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986). I n these previous studies, women were more
manic, storgic, and pragmatic, while men were more ludic. One explanation
for the lack of replication might be the different method that was used to
measure love styles in this study. When absolute normative scores were used,
as in the previous studies, the women were significantly more manic (t,,,,, =
2.31, p < .024) than the men. However, when relative scores were employed,
this difference disappeared. However, for both relative and absolute scores,
the directions of the differences were consistent with previous studies. The
most likely explanation for the lack of replication of earlier studies is that
Type 2 errors occurred because the sample size was small so subsequent
statistical power was laclung.
A breakdown of the correlation coefficients between love styles and sat-
isfaction scores for men and women, seen in Tables 2 and 3, illuminated
some interesting sex differences. The largest difference can be seen in the
ludus-life satisfaction correlations: a positive correlation was recorded for
men and a negative correlation was recorded for women. Using Fisher's r to z
transformations, these two correlations were significantly different (z = 3.15,
p < .01). The next largest difference between men and women was seen in
the correlations between pragmatic love style and life satisfaction, where the
correlation for men was significantly more negative (z = -2.50, p < . 0 5 ) The
three correlations between erotic love style and work satisfaction, same-sex-
friend satisfaction, and opposite-sex-friend satisfaction for men were all
- -

significantly more negative than the same three correlations for women
(z = -2.22, p < .05; z = -1.97, p < .05; z = -2.06, p < .05). Finally, the corre-
lation between storgic love style and same-sex-friend satisfaction for men was
 LOVE STYLES AND LIFE SATISFACTION 887

TABLE 2
LOVEAND SATISFACTION:
PE~RSON FORWOMEN
CORRELATIONS (n = 98)

Love Styles Satisfaction M SD

Life Work Same Opposite Romantic
Sex Sex
Storgic .10 .13 .06 .21* .01 -.O 1.0
Agapic .22* .O1 .07 .16 .27* -.2 1.0
Manic -.28* -.I4 -.06 -.I8 -.24* .3 .8
Pragmatic .12 .01 .03 -.06 .05 -. 1 .8
Ludic -.25* -.I0 -.23* -.23* -.I5 -.2 .9
Erotic .06 .08 .13 .06 .03 .3 .9
M 3.9 3.1 3.9 4.0 3.7
SD .9 1.0 .9 .9 1.3
*p < .05.

significantly more positive than the same correlation for women (2 = 1.97,
p c . 0 5 ) . The one consistent finding between the sexes was that the manic
love style was negatively correlated with life satisfaction and romantic
satisfaction for both men and women. The nature of these sex differences
was different when absolute love scores were used instead of relative love
scores.2

TABLE 3
LOVE
AND SATISFACTION:
PEARSON
CORRELATIONS
FORMEN(n= 42)
Love Styles Satisfaction M SD
Life Work Same Opposite Romantic
Sex Sex
Storgic
Agapic
Manic
Pragmatic
Ludic
Erotic
M
SD

Conclusion
The original intent of this research was to examine the utility of various
love styles for satisfaction with life, relationships, and work. Because a num-
ber of the correlations were moderated by sex, the focus of the conclusion
will be on correlations within each sex rather than across the sexes. The
"double standard," in which it is more acceptable for men to "play the
field," seems to be alive and well, at least among the university students in
this study. An examination of the results showed that a game-playing, ludic
888 G. YANCEY & S. BERGLASS

love style was predictive of life satisfaction for men, but dissatisfaction with
life, same-sex friends, and opposite-sex friends for women. O n the other
hand, an unselfish, agapic love style was predictive of life satisfaction and
romantic satisfaction for women, while a pragmatic love style was predictive
of dissatisfaction with life for men. Although there are ludic women and
pragmatic men, because these love styles might conflict with conventional
sexual stereotypes of appropriate behavior or attitudes towards love, these
particular men and women may experience some problems in their social re-
lationships.
The ludic, game-playing love style is apparently still more appropriate
for men. Although there are indications that young women flirt as much as
young men (Perper & Fox, 1980) and that sexually active college women are
increasingly accepting of their sexuality (Scanzoni & Fox, 1980), there is still
evidence for the double standard. Parents are more tolerant of their sons'
sexual activities than they are of their daughters' (Coles & Stokes, 1985).
Teenage girls with many sexual partners are evaluated more negatively than
teenage boys with many sexual partners (McCormick & Jesser, 1983). Fewer
people approve of premarital sex for women than for men and women are
less likely to approve of premarital sex, even though acceptance of premarital
sex in general has increased (Hunt, 1974). Men are still expected to be the
aggressor, to ask the woman out, pay for the date, or initiate sex (Green &
Sandos, 1983; Allgeier, 1981; Zellman & Goodchilds, 1983; McCormick &
Jesser, 1983).
While men are expected to be the aggressor, women are expected to be
more "warm" (Broverman, Vogel, Broverman, Clarkson, & Rosenkrantz,
1972). Also, women may have a more realistic and less romantic approach to
mate selection (Knox & Sporakowski, 1968). These expectations might ex-
plain the positive correlation between agape and life satisfaction for women
and the negative correlation between pragma and life satisfaction for men.
The one find~ngconsistent for both sexes was the negative correlation
between a possessive, manic love style and life satisfaction. This is consistent
with Lee's (1988, p. 51) description of the typical manic lover as "usually
lonely in adult life and often dissatisfied with their work."
A major limitation of this study was the youth of the participants. Lee
(1988, p. 50) described the typical ludic lover as "often frustrated in adult
life. They are unwilling to commit themselves to love." Commitment is criti-
cal for establishing a mature love (Erikson, 1963; Fromm, 1974; Sternberg,
1988) and for life satisfaction (Brickman, 1987). However, for the young
men in this study, ludic love without commitment seemed to be a satisfying
life style. Because "interest in sex" is an important part of the male role
(Cicone & Ruble, 1978), and younger men are more concerned with "prov-
ing their masculinity" (Doyle, 1989, p. 86) and are strongly subject to peer
 LOVE STYLES AND LIFE SATISFACTION 889

pressure (Costanzo & Shaw, 1966), perhaps espousing the ludic love style is
a way for the men in this study to prove their manhood and win the admira-
tion of their peers. For the men who do not aspire to this "macho"
stereotype, there may be less social acceptance and more role conflict. People
tend to dislike those who do not conform (Schachter, 1951). Young women,
on the other hand, tend to be concerned with their acceptance by men
(Doyle, 1989, p. 86). An agapic love style may be useful in obtaining male
acceptance and for living up to stereotypical views of femininity such as be-
ing warm and caring.
Another weakness of this study was the use of Laswell and Laswell's
1976 SAMPLE Profile to measure Lee's love styles. This instrument has
been updated and improved upon by Hendrick and Hendrick (1986). The
SAMPLE Profile is further limited because of its self-report nature. Men
with high ludic scores or low pragmatic scores and women with high agapic
scores may have simply been providing the most socially desirable response.
Lee (1988) felt that agapic love should be dropped from his classification of
love styles because he found so little evidence of true agapic love. Were the
subjects in this study with high agape scores truly agapic, or merely respond-
ing in a socially desirable way? The same problem exists with the satisfaction
measures. The average subject expressed satisfaction with life, but this is also
a socially desirable response. Further research with more objective measures
and a wider range of subjects is needed.
REFERENCES
ALLCEIER,E. R. (1981) The influence of androgynous identification on heterosexual relations.
Sex Roles, 7, 321-330.
BRICKMAN,P (1987) Commitment, conflict, and caring. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
BROVERMAN, I., VOCEL,S., BROVERMAN, D., CLARKSON, F., & ROSENKRANTZ, P. (1972) Sex-role
stereotypes: a current appraisal. Journal of Social Issues, 28, 59-78.
CICONE,M., & R ~ L ED., (1978) Beliefs about males. Journal of Social Issues, 34, 5-16.
COLES,R., & STOKES,G. (1985) Sex and the American teenager. New York: Harper & Row.
COSTANZO, P, & SHAM,M. (1966) Conformity as a function of age level. Child Development,
37, 967-975.
DOYLE,J. (1989) The mak experience. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.
ERIKSON,E. (1963) Childhood and society. New York: Norton.
FROMM,E. (1974) The art of loving. New York: Harper & Row.
GREEN,S., & SANDOS, P (1983) Perceptions of male and female initiators of relationships. Sex
Roles, 9, 849-852.
HAYS,W. L. (1973) Statistics for the social sciences. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
HENDRICK, C., & HENDRICK, S. (1986) A theory and method of love. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychologv, 50, 392-402.
HENDRICK,C., HENDRICK, S., & ADLER, N. L. (1988) Romantic relationships: love, satisfac-
tion, and staylng together. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 980-988.
HENDRICK, C., HENDRICK,S., FOOTE, F. H . , & SLAPION-FOOTE, M. J. (1984) Do men and
women love differently? Journal of Socral and Personal Relations, 1, 177-195.
H m , M. (1974) Sexual behavior in the 1970's. Chicago, IL: Playboy Press.
KNOX,D., & SPORAKOWSKI, M. (1968) Attitudes OF college students toward love. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 30, 638-642.
890 G . YANCEY & S. BERGLASS

LASMELL, T. E., & LASWELL,M. E. (1976) I love you but I'm not in love with you. Journal of
Marriage and Family Counseling, 38, 211-224.
LEE, J. A. (1973) The colors of love: an exploration of the ways of loving. Don Mills, Ontario:
New Press.
LEE, J. A. (1988) Love-styles. In R. J. Sternberg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of
love. New Haven, CT: Yale Univer. Press. Pp. 38-67.
M C C O ~ C KN., B., & JESSER,C. J (1983) The courtship fame: power in the sexual encoun-
ter. In E. R. Allgeier & N. B. McCormick (Eds.), C angtng boundaries: gender roles and
sexual behavior. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield. Pp. 64-86.
PERPER,T., & FOX,V. (1980) Flirtation and pickup patterns in bars. Paper presented at the an-
nual meeting of the Eastern Coderence on Reproductive Behavior, New York.
SCANZONI, J., & FOX,G . (1980) Sex roles, family, and society: the 70's and beyond. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 42, 743-756.
SCHACHTER, S. (1951) Deviation, rejection, and communication. Journal of Abnormal and So-
cial Psychology, 46, 190-207.
STERNBERG, R. J. (1988) The triangle of loue: intimacy, passion, commitment. New York: Basic
Books.
ZELLMAN,G . L., & GOODCHILDS, D. (1983) Becornin sexual in adolescence. In E. R.
Allgeier & N. B McCormici (Eds.), Changing boumfaries: gender mlrr and rexual behav-
ior. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield. Pp. 49-63.

Accepted April 23, 1931.