PsyCh Journal (2020)

DOI: 10.1002/pchj.338

Types of love as a function of satisfaction and age

Miguel Clemente ,1 Manuel Gandoy-Crego,2 Cesar Bugallo-Carrera,2 Adela Reig-Botella,1 and

Cristina Gomez-Cantorna3
1
Universidad de A Coruña, A Coruña, Spain, 2Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de
Compostela, Spain, 3Universidad de Vigo, Vigo, Spain

Abstract: Research studies on love have focused on the study of typologies, among which Sternberg’s triangular theory of love and the
typology of Hendrick and Hendrick deriving from that of Sternberg have been the most common and empirically verified. Love types
have been linked to all types of sociodemographic and psychological variables. However, these studies possess shortcomings: When the
data are analyzed according to age, only a few ranges are studied; with respect to other variables such as satisfaction, typically only two
levels are studied, and no continuous study is conducted. This study attempts to overcome these limitations. It analyzes types of love
according to the two systems noted earlier and based on two variables: age and satisfaction. For satisfaction, the Satisfaction With Life
Scale (SWLS) by Diener et al. was used, and 439 subjects aged 15 to 89 years participated in the study. The results show that both of the
variables—age and satisfaction—explain that love types occur in varying degrees; however, satisfaction is more predictive than is age.
Possibilities for future research are discussed.

Keywords: age; Hendrick and Hendrick typology; love satisfaction; Sternberg typology
Correspondence Miguel Clemente, Department of Psychology, Universidad de A Coruña, Elviña’s Campus, A Coruña 15071, Spain.
Email: miguel.clemente@udc.es
Received 30 July 2018. Accepted 18 November 2019.

One of the analyzed processes within interpersonal relation-
ships is that of intimate relationships, specifically love
(Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Shaver, Hazan, & Bradshaw, 1988).
Current research has been focused instead primarily on
within-person variability in attachments across relational
partners. However, within-person variability is noteworthy,
even among primary attachment figures of mother, father,
romantic partner, and best friend, and perception is more
important than are objective indicators of attachment.
Autonomy promotion and its effects on close relationships
have also been studied, among others, by Deci, La Guardia,
Moller, Scheiner, and Ryan (2006), who indicated that the
fact of receiving autonomy support from a close person
was a good statistical predictor that not only does the
receiver experience satisfaction but also he or she can value
the relationship quality. Autonomy support is more valued
by the receiver than is giving autonomy itself, and it is the
most predicting variable from a statistical point of view
over other variables such as well-being.
The quality of the relationships established between
close people is a statistical predictive factor on the continu-
ity of those relationships. Thus, Gable, Gonzaga, and
Strachman (2006), employing both cognitive and behav-
ioral measures, reported that a couple was more likely to
break up after 2 months when indicators showed a poor
relationship between them (in particular, indicators of
behavioral patterns).
One of the reasons why friendship quality is attached to
happiness is that friendship experiences provide an environ-
ment where basic needs are satisfied (Demir &
Özdemir, 2010).
One possible reason why a love relationship occurs is
based on the concept of attachment. Formerly, studies were
more focused on attachment as an individual matter, subse-
quently giving way to research on types of love. This is the
case, for example, of the line followed by Shaver et al.
(1988), who stated that there are three behavioral systems
that explain how love relationships are determined in

© 2020 The Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
2 Satisfaction, age, and love
adults: attachment, caregiving, and sex. This triple system
has been verified, for example, by Peloquin, Brassard,
Deslile, and Bedard (2013). This idea of dividing love into
its components expresses a way of conceiving the phenom-
enon that has also been used in a conventional manner by
Hazan and Shaver (1987) and by Sternberg (1986, 1987,
1998a, 1998b), as discussed in this article. One might claim
that today, the theory most widely used to explain love is
Sternberg’s (1986, 1987, 1998a, 1998b) three-factor theory.
According to Veenhoven (2001), over the centuries, the
term happiness has been used as a catchall for every mean-
ing of quality of life. In Social Science, is often used to
denote subjective enjoyment of life (Ovalle & Marti-
nez, 2008).
The concepts of quality of life, subjective well-being, life
satisfaction, and happiness are characteristic of the theoreti-
cal approach called positive psychology (Avia & Vásquez,
1998; Barrientos, 2005; Diener, 1994, 1998; Diener, Suh,
Lucas, & Smith, 1999). Quality of life is a polysemic con-
cept, having been defined in psychology in such different
ways as subjective well-being, happiness, satisfaction; even
though these have different meanings one from another, in
most of the studies they are used in an undifferentiated way
(Garcia-Viniegras & González, 2000; Palomar, 2004;
Veenhoven, 1994). Nonetheless, quality of life is mainly
conceived as a multidimensional construct that includes
objective and subjective components relating to several life
fields (Cummins & Cahill, 2000). Furthermore, quality of
life and happiness are concepts with consistency over time,
as works by Diener, Kanazawa, Suh, and Oishi (2016) and
Kansky, Allen, and Diener (2016) have proven.
Moyano-Diaz and Ramos-Alvarado (2007) proved the
existence of a direct and significant relationship among
happiness, self-assessment of health, and life satisfaction in
Chilean populations. The main area where this theory was
implemented has been the one of couple relationships;
Proulx, Helms, and Buehler (2007) examined the relation-
ship between marital quality and well-being, through a
meta-analysis (93 studies). Their results have shown that
there are variables that moderate the relationship between
the two mentioned concepts, such as gender, marital dura-
tion, and so on.
The association between life satisfaction in general and
relationship satisfaction has also been researched (Dyrdal,
Røysamb, Nes, & Vittersø, 2011), through a longitudinal
study using mothers and children’s data. This study has
addressed some of our investigation issues, when
© 2020 The Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
establishing that a satisfactory romantic couple relationship
is important for expressing as well as increasing future life
satisfaction. A study by Gustavson, Nilsen, Ørstavik, and
Røysamb (2014), gathering data from Norwegian mothers
and children, aimed to link divorce, life satisfaction, and
positive affect; the authors noted that when the relationship
between ex-spouses was poor, the divorce implied higher
scores in life satisfaction and also in positive affect. In gen-
eral terms, relationship quality affects life satisfaction and
positive affect.
Well-being may also be affected by external variables
(Schimmack & Lucas, 2010) and also may be affected by
cultural variables (Diener, Gohm, Suh, & Oishi, 2000), as
proven through a sample from 42 countries. Gerstorf,
Windsor, Hoppmann, and Butterworth (2013) linked those
results to the possible spousal similarities in mental health.
Sternberg’s theory identifies three components of love
that actually express the typical structure of the human
mind, as specified by Diessner, Frost, and Smith (2004):
cognition, affect, and conation. When Sternberg referred to
commitment, he actually was pointing to cognition; passion
refers to conation; the intimacy component is mostly
related to affect. Therefore, the triangular theory of love
ontologically presupposes a neoclassical structure of the
human mind. Masuda (2003) conducted two meta-analyses
of scales of love. At that time, he specified the existence of
four major theories of love: those of Rubin (1973), Lee
(1973), Hatfield (Berscheid & Hatfield, 1969; Hatfield &
Walster, 1985; Hatfield, Walster, & Berscheid, 1978), and
Sternberg (1986, 1987, 1998a, 1998b). In 1986, Sternberg
proposed his triangular theory of love, which consists of
three components—passion, commitment, and intimacy—
which are interdependent and located on the vertices of a
triangle (Table 1).
However, Lee (1973) developed one of the most relevant
theories of love: He differentiated between three basic love
styles or “primary colors,” establishing a similarity with
colors: Eros, Ludus, and Storge. The different combinations
of “primary colors” lead to three secondary styles or “sec-
ondary colors:” Mania, Pragma, and Agape (for mo1).
Based on this scale, Hendrick and Hendrick (1986)
developed the Love Attitudes Scale to evaluate the six love
styles proposed in this typology, but without distinguishing
between primary and secondary love styles (Ferrer, Bosch,
Navarro, Ramis, & García, 2008).
Love styles that arouse acceptance in our environment
(Ferrer et al., 2008) are, in the following order, Eros,
PsyCh Journal 3

Table 1
Summary of the Types of Love for the Typologies of Sternberg (1986) and of Hendrick and Hendrick (1986)
Sternberg model
Intimacy
Passion
Commitment
Romantic love (Intimacy + Passion)
Companionate love (Intimacy +
Commitment)
Fatuous love (Passion + Commitment)
Consummate love (Passion +
Commitment + Intimacy)
Hendrick and Hendrick model
EROS (passionate love)
LUDUS (game-playing love)
STORGE (friendship love)
PRAGMA (practical love)
MANIA (possessive, dependent love)
AGAPE (altruistic love)
Definition
Encompasses feelings of attachment, closeness, connectedness, and bondedness.
Encompasses drives connected to both limerence and sexual attraction.
Encompasses, in the short term, the decision to remain with another, and in the long term, plans
made with that other.
Derives from a combination of the intimate and passionate components of love. Romantic lovers
are not only drawn physically to each other but are also bonded emotionally, bonded both
intimately and passionately, but without sustaining commitment.
Intimate, nonpassionate type of love that is stronger than friendship because of the element of
long-term commitment. This type of love is observed in long-term marriages where passion is
no longer present but where a deep affection and commitment remain. The love ideally shared
between family members is a form of companionate love, as is the love between close friends
who have a platonic, but strong, friendship.
Exemplified by a whirlwind courtship and marriage—fatuous in the sense that a commitment is
made on the basis of passion without the stabilizing influence of intimate involvement.
Complete form of love, representing an ideal relationship which people strive toward. Is theorized
to be that love associated with the “perfect couple.” These couples will continue to have great
sex 15 years or more into the relationship, they cannot imagine themselves happier over the
long term with anyone else, they overcome their few difficulties gracefully, and each delight in
the relationship with one other. Thus, consummate love may not be permanent. If passion is
lost over time, it may change into companionate love.
Passionate physical and emotional love of wanting to satisfy, create sexual contentment, security,
and aesthetic enjoyment for each other. Also includes creating sexual security for the other by
striving to forsake options of sharing one’s intimate and sexual self with outsiders.
Used by those who see love as a desiring to want to have fun with each other; to do activities
indoors and outdoors, tease, indulge, and play harmless pranks on each other. The acquisition
of love and attention itself may be part of the game.
Grows slowly out of friendship. Based more on similar interests and a commitment to one another
rather than on passion.
Based on the perceptions of practicality. People who prefer this style approach their relationship in
a “business-like” fashion and look for partners with whom they can share common goals.
This style usually flows out of a desire to hold one’s partner in high esteem and wanting to love
and be loved in this way, seeing specialness in the interaction.
One derives one’s definition of love in being altruistic toward one’s partner and feeling love in the
acts of doing so. The person is willing to endure difficulty that arises from the partner’s
circumstance. It is based on an unbreakable commitment and an unconditional, selfless love.

Agape, Pragma, and Storge. However, Ludus generates dis-
agreement, and Mania generates indifference.
Many studies have assessed the suitability of Sternberg’s
(1986) triangular structure and its reliability or issues relat-
ing to the measuring instrument itself, and almost all have
concluded that it is actually appropriate. For example, this
is the case of the works by Andrade, Garcia and Cassepp-
Borges (2013) and Cassepp-Borges and Pasquali (2012),
both working with Brazilian samples, and Buhl and
Hassebrauck (1995). However, the three-factor structure
has not been verified by Yela (1997) in Spanish samples.
This author identified four components (erotic passion,
romantic passion, intimacy, and commitment) and also pro-
posed a shortened version of each scale that consists of
only five items, suggesting three main stages in love
relationships: being in love, passionate love, and compan-
ionate love (Yela, 2006). The issue of creating shorter ver-
sions has also been raised by Aron and Westbay (1996).
One of the main methodological problems with this trian-
gular theory is that expressed by Kwon (2006), who speci-
fied that all three factors have high correlations that are
always above 0.45; therefore, this three-element composi-
tion might be questioned. Finally, real, perceptive, and reg-
ulatory aspects may affect the manner in which participants
respond. Thus, a study by Martínez and Fernández (1993)
applied Sternberg’s scale; however, participants are
requested to respond to each item based on their real rela-
tionships, what they report or perceive, what they desire,
and what they consider desirable in society. The results
were somewhat consistent, but showed differences.

© 2020 The Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
4 Satisfaction, age, and love
Given the approach of this article, we seek to separately
analyze the following two variables: age and satisfaction.
Age
Studies have also been conducted on the topic that love is
different depending on people’s age. A study by Yun-Jeong
and Young (2005) focused exclusively on two age groups:
middle-aged adults and senior adults, relating love type to
sexual satisfaction. Curiously, among older men, romantic
love was associated with increased sexual behaviors. A
study by Sumter, Valkenburg, and Peter (2013) was more
comprehensive; it uses three samples: teenagers (12–-
17 years), young people (18–30 years), and seniors
(≥50 years). They found that teenagers have lower scores
on the three love components of Sternberg’s typology,
seniors have lower levels of passion and intimacy, and
young people and teenagers have equal levels of compan-
ionship. However, there were hardly any differences in
terms of gender. Research studies have failed to reach con-
sensus. Reeder (1996) found data showing that the three
components of Sternberg significantly decrease with age.
However, Acker and Davis (1992) specified that the
expected decline in passion over time occurs in the case of
women only. This work shows that commitment is the best
statistical predictor of satisfaction, but only in long-term
relationships. Regarding age, Eros would be the preferred
style among young adults whereas preference for styles
such as Storge or Pragma (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986)
would increase with age. The analysis with participants
from Latin America has shown that women prefer Agape
(Caycedo et al., 2007). These factors, among others, may
modulate the predominant style of love in every environ-
ment or social group.
Satisfaction
In this case, satisfaction entirely depends on the satisfaction
scale employed, with the most common scale being that by
Diener, Emmons, Larsen, and Griffin (1985). This scale
has been psychometrically verified (e.g., Diener, Suh, &
Oishi, 1997; Huebner, 2004; Pavot & Diener, 1993; Pavot,
Diener, Colvin, & Sandvik, 1991). As noted earlier,
Mônego and Teodoro (2011) found that intimacy, passion,
and conscientiousness significantly contribute to creating
satisfaction in participants and that the opposite occurs with
neuroticism. In addition, satisfaction has been linked to the
so-called positive psychology (Bronk, Hill, Lapsley,
Talib, & Finch, 2009; Huebner, 2004). Satisfaction is
© 2020 The Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
studied with very similar concepts such as happiness. For
example, Abdel-Khalek (2006) assessed the suitability of a
scale comprising a single item, also verifying a high corre-
lation with Diener et al.’s (1985) scale. The fact is that one
of the key elements to be analyzed in love relationships is
people’s psychological well-being, taking into account the
individual’s assessment of his or her life and subjective
well-being, by differentiating between two components: life
satisfaction (Diener, 1994) and happiness or an overall
assessment between positive affect and negative affect
(Argyle, 1992; Chico & Ferrando, 2008). Life satisfaction
positively correlates with positive affect and negatively with
negative affect (Gouveia, Milfont, Fonseca, & Coelho,
2009). Furthermore, individuals who show high life satis-
faction have adequate mental health and a lack of stress,
depression, and negative emotions or anxiety (Atienza,
Pons, Balaguer, & Garcia-Merita, 2000).
Love, a typically psychosocial variable, has been studied
almost exclusively in adolescent populations and less fre-
quently in adults, but within adulthood, in ages that rarely
exceed 40 years. This emphasizes the myth that love
belongs to adolescents and youth, and that with the passing
of time, it is no longer important in people’s lives. Through
this research, we wanted to address a broad range of ages
to verify whether love is present in even very old people.
There is empirical evidence that as people age, satisfaction
with life becomes an adequate predictor of happiness and
even of the achievement of positive coping with diseases;
that is, of developing a healthy aging. Therefore, we have
considered it appropriate to select both variables—age and
satisfaction with life—as criteria to examine how each kind
of love manifests. The main objective of this work is to ver-
ify how some types of love manifest more than o others,
for this purpose, following the two main theories that clas-
sify love: that of Sternberg (1986) and that of Hendrick and
Hendrick (1986). We understand that causality cannot be
determined; therefore, a descriptive study will be carried
out, although using inferential statistics.
In line with this approach, we decided to investigate the
extent to which the various types of love vary, depending
on age and life satisfaction. Evidently, although several
studies have analyzed the evolution of love types with age,
they normally have used a very limited age range whereas
this article aims at ranging from adolescence (when love
relationships begin) to older ages. Furthermore, regarding
satisfaction, the idea is to analyze its various levels and not
only a categorical division of the variable. Our hypothesis
PsyCh Journal
is that both variables determine and modify the types of
love. To that end, two scales were chosen: the Sternberg
(1986) classic Triangular Love Scale, which analyzes both
the three types of general love and each of their compo-
nents, and the Hendrick and Hendrick (1986) Love Atti-
tudes Scale derived from it, which comprises a wide variety
of love types. We decided to use both love-styles scales
(a) to determine which one obtained higher relations with
satisfaction and age, and (b) to determine whether a shorter
typology (Sternberg) or a more complete one (Hendrick
and Hendrick) should be used.
We hypothesized that considering the categories of
Sternberg’s (1986) model, older people will be inclined to
place more value on an the Affection-type of love; that is,
valuing Intimacy, as well as a sociable or companionate
type of love (union of Intimacy and Commitment). How-
ever, younger people will tend to place more value on infat-
uation (based on Passion), on Romantic Love (union of
Intimacy and Passion), and especially on Fatuous Love
(union of Passion and Commitment). We also hypothesized
that Consummate Love will be valued more at
intermediate ages.
Regarding the Hendrick and Hendrick (1986) model, we
hypothesized that as people age, they will place more value
on the Storge model (friendly love, lasting and long-term
Commitment), and on Agape (love that nourishes, the most
unconditional of all). However, younger people will place
more value on Eros love (Passion), Ludus (characterized by
play), and Mania (obsessive or compulsive love). We also
hypothesized that at intermediate adult ages, the Pragmatic
type of love will predominate.
Regarding satisfaction with life, we hypothesized that
people who express greater satisfaction, taking as reference
the model of Sternberg, will present any type of love except
for empty love. This kind of love is hypothesized to be
expressed by people who report less satisfaction with life.
Regarding the relationship between satisfaction and the
Hendrick and Hendrick (1986) model, we hypothesized that
Pragmatic love will be valued more by people who report
lower levels of satisfaction.
Finally, for the interaction between the two selected vari-
ables, age and satisfaction, we hypothesized that their inter-
action will produce significant effects under Sternberg’s
Consummate Love (Passion, Commitment, and Intimacy),
such that older people and people who are more satisfied
will value that model more; the same will occur for Agape
love within the Hendrick and Hendrick model.
© 2020 The Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
5
Method
Participants
There were 439 participants, of whom 36.7% were women
and 63.3% men. Regarding educational levels, 23.8% of
participants had no formal education 14.9% had a primary
or secondary education, 27.9% were secondary-school
graduates, 17.2% had vocational training, 15.3% had uni-
versity education, and 0.9% had other education. Regarding
marital status, 54.9% were single, 39.4% were married,
2.3% were divorced, and 3.4% were widowed. Finally, the
average age was 36.96 years (SD = 19.501; minimum
age = 15, maximum age = 89).
Regarding the age groups, the final sample consisted of
121 subjects in the first range, 105 in the second, 107 in
the third, and 106 in the fourth. Regarding the groups
based on satisfaction, the final results showed that they
were comprised (from the lowest level or satisfaction level
to the highest level) of 114, 113, 114, and 98 subjects.
The type of sampling was incidental and was conducted
by the interviewers. All interviewees were located in the
city of A Coruña (Spain), and data were collected between
September 2016 and December 2016. The research was
approved by an Ethical Committee of the Universidade da
Coruña (Spain).
Subjects were recruited according to their age, using the
minimum age of 15 years, with no maximum age. Two
large shopping centers were selected to locate the subjects,
and the following schedules were chosen, coinciding with
times of great affluence: Fridays from 18 to 22 hr, and
Saturdays from 16 to 22 hr. On Fridays, three surveyors
collected data, acting individually, and on Saturdays, four
surveyors. Data collection was done on two weekends. The
surveyors asked people to participate, and if they accepted,
they were invited to move to a glass-walled room so that
they could be seen by their accompanying persons (if any)
and where they were sheltered from noise. The percentage
of people who were willing to participate was calculated
based on the total number of people who were asked to par-
ticipate; the acceptance rate was 55%.
Instruments
Three instruments were applied and are detailed next.
Sternberg’s (1986) Triangular Love Scale
This three-factor scale consists of 45 items (Intimancy,
Passion, Commitment, respectively), with a 9-point Likert
6 Satisfaction, age, and love
scale fom 1 (not at all) to 9 (extremely). Each factor consists
of 15 items. Furthermore, Sternberg created types of love
that are combinations of the pure types: Romantic love,
which combines Intimacy and Passion; Social or Compan-
ionate love, which combines Intimacy and Commitment;
Fatuous love, which is a mixture of Passion and Commit-
ment; and finally, Consummate love, which combines the
three components of Passion, Commitment, and Intimacy.
Love Attitudes Scale by Hendrick and Hendrick (1986)
This six-factor scale consists of 42 items with a 5-point
Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree). The response to Item 9 must be reversed. The first
seven items comprise the Eros factor; the next seven com-
prise Ludus; the next seven comprise Storge; the following
seven encompass Pragma, then Mania; and the last seven
address Agape (for a summary of the types of love identi-
fied by Sternberg and those identified by Hendrick and
Hendrick, see Table 1).
The Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS; Diener
et al., 1985)
Of all of the instruments that measure satisfaction with
life, the most widely used is the SWLS developed by
Diener et al. (1985) from a sample of university students
and elderly people. The scale shows a unidimensional
structure and adequate psychometric properties. In addition,
this instrument has been translated into numerous lan-
guages (Nuñez, Martín-Albo, & Domínguez, 2010). In gen-
eral, the SWLS has proven to be a suitable instrument for
assessing satisfaction with life in various contexts such as
university students, the elderly, high-performance athletes,
and people of different cultures. This scale has been trans-
lated into Spanish and was validated in a sample of teenage
students (Atienza et al., 2000) and was subsequently vali-
dated in a sample of elderly participants (Pons, Atienza,
Balaguer, & Garcia-Merita, 2002) as well as participants
performing physical activity (Nuñez et al., 2010). In our
case, the version adapted to Spanish was used. This version
consists of five questions with five possible responses,
ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
Procedure
A test battery was prepared that included an informed con-
sent form, instructions on the study, an explanation of the
demographic data of the participant, and the three specified
tests.
The sample was recruited using an incidental procedure.
As on the weekends people go to the mall regardless of age
© 2020 The Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
and condition, the mall was used to recruit the sample, as
described earlier.
To perform the data analysis depending on age and satis-
faction, the quartiles of both variables were determined. In
the case of gender, the t-test mean difference for indepen-
dent samples was used. For age, the first quartile was only
until 19 years, the second quartile was between 20 and
32 years, the third quartile was between 33 and 50 years,
and the fourth quartile was over 50 years of age. The quar-
tiles found for satisfaction were: up to a value of 3 for the
first quartile, from 3.01 to 3.6 for the second quartile, from
3.61 to 4.2 for the third quartile, and over 4.2 for the fourth
quartile. Therefore, two independent variables were consid-
ered: age and satisfaction. The love types were considered
as dependent variables, according to the two typologies
employed. A two-way repeated measures analysis of vari-
ance (ANOVA) was calculated by applying Scheffé’s
method in case one factor or interaction offered significant
results. Although they are not the object of this study, pos-
sible gender differences were previously verified in the
manifestations of the various types of love. For this pur-
pose, the statistical t test of differences of means will be
used, checking previously to determine the homogeneity of
variances. A significance of p ≤ .05 was established. IBM
SPSS Version 20 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY) software was
used for data analysis.
Data analysis
To perform the data analysis depending on age and satis-
faction, the quartiles of both variables were determined. In
the case of gender, the t-test mean difference for indepen-
dent samples was used. In the case of age, the first quartile
was up to 19 years (Group 1), the second quartile was
between 20 and 32 years (Group 2), the third quartile was
between 33 and 50 years (Group 3), and the fourth quartile
was over 50 years of age. The following quartiles were cal-
culated for satisfaction: up to a value of 3.00 for the first
quartile, from 3.01 to 3.60 for the second quartile, from
3.61 to 4.20 for the third quartile, and over 4.20 for the
fourth quartile. The two independent variables were age
and satisfaction. The love types were considered as depen-
dent variables, according to the two typologies employed.
A two-way repeated measures ANOVA was calculated,
applying Scheffé’s method if significant differences were
observed in a factor or an interaction. Although they are
not the object of this study, possible gender differences
were previously verified in the expressions of the various
PsyCh Journal 7

types of love. For this purpose, the statistical t test of differ-
ences of means was used, previously determining the
homogeneity of variances. A significance of p ≤ .05 was
established. IBM SPSS Version 20 software was again used
for data analysis.
Results
Regarding the validation of gender differences in the vari-
ous types of love, the application of the t test of differences
of means revealed that there were only differences in three
types of love: Infatuation, in favor of the males, T = 2.104,
p = .036; Fatuous Love, also in favor of the males,
T = 2.117, p. = .035, and Ludus love, in favor of the
women, T = −2.013, p. = .045. These differences are only
at the 95% confidence level, and never at 99%. Therefore,
in general, there are few gender differences in the types
of love.
The mean and SD for each dependent variable were sep-
arately calculated, specifying their values according to each
independent variable. Then, the two-way ANOVA was
applied (Table 2). Only statistically significant comparisons
are shown. The results show that both factors were signifi-
cant, as was their interaction.
Note that with increasing age, some types of love increase
their score. This is the case of Affection (Intimacy) within
Sternberg’s model (especially at the age interval of
20–32 years) or of Empty love (in this case, at all age inter-
vals). Eros love is the least manifest, and it appears the most
frequently in the age interval of the oldest people
(>50 years). Agape love does not manifest often. In general,
it can be said that the types of love that are not pure mani-
fest the most, but several of them combine with each other.
Regarding satisfaction, the types of love that manifest
the most are Affection and Empty Love, assuming an inter-
esting dilemma. Moreover, Companionate Love and
Romantic Love increase more with satisfaction than do Fat-
uous Love and Consummate Love.
When we examine the results for each type of love in
Table 2, first in terms of age, we find the following.
• Age had no significant effect on any type of love from
Sternberg’s typology.
• Regarding the love typology of Hendrick and Hendrick
(1986), four love types are significant: Storge, which is
higher for the groups of young people (2nd quartile) and
older people (4th quartile), as compared to the other two
groups; Pragma, which is higher in the two younger age
groups and lower in the two groups of older people; and
Mania, which is higher for Groups 2 and 4 and lower in
Groups 1 and 3.
• Regarding differences in terms of the various age levels,
when we examine the variables that compose Sternberg’s

Table 2
Analysis of Variance of Two Ways (Age and Satisfaction) for Each Type of Love
Dependent Sum of square Root-mean Effect Effect size: statistical
variable type III df square value F Sig. size: ηp2 power
Age Storge 5.458 3 1.819 2.820 .039 .017 .617
Pragma 15.782 3 5.261 8.662 .000 .050 .985
Mania 12.409 3 4.136 7.570 .000 .043 .965
Global HH 4302.746 3 1434.249 5.131 .002 .039 .928
Satisfaction Eros 20.787 3 6.929 10.624 .000 .089 1.00
Ludus 17.724 3 5.908 9.753 .000 .067 .998
Mania 6.603 3 2.201 4.028 .008 .019 .662
Agape 17.822 3 5.941 7.623 .000 .056 .990
Intimacy 130.070 3 43.357 27.783 .000 .166 1.00
Passion 92.739 3 30.913 14.794 .000 .113 1.00
Commitment 119.100 3 39.700 16.173 .000 .166 1.00
Romantic love 62352.557 3 20784.186 23.582 .000 .154 1.00
Companionate 65886.891 3 21962.297 23.315 .000 .143 1.00
Love
Fatuous love 54825.562 3 18275.187 17.567 .000 .124 1.00
Consummate 136569.349 3 45523.116 22.304 .000 .144 1.00
love
Age × Satisfaction Storge 15.589 9 1.732 2.684 .005 .060 .971
Agape 17.088 9 1.899 2.436 .011 .055 .938
Global HH 6825.108 9 758.345 2.713 .004 .059 .956
Note. Sig. = level of significance; Global HH = global score for the Hendrick & Hendrick scale.

© 2020 The Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
8 Satisfaction, age, and love

Figure 1. Types of love according to the age. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Figure 2. Types of love according to the satisfaction. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

model, we can see how significant all of the variables
are. In addition, a bottom-up score is detected in all vari-
ables: Satisfaction Group 1 (or very low) scores lower in
each variable than Group 2 (low satisfaction), which in
turn scores lower than Group 3 (high satisfaction); Group
4, which consists of older people, is the group that scores
highest (very high satisfaction).
• Regarding the differences in the types of love identified by
Hendrick and Hendrick (1986) in terms of satisfaction,
there are four significant types of love: Eros (with declin-
ing results, from the group with the lowest to the group
with the highest satisfaction level), Ludus (in which the
group with the highest satisfaction level stands out with
the highest score), Mania (in which the group with the
lowest satisfaction level stands out with the lowest score),
and Agape (with scores that increasingly decrease, from
the lowest to the highest level of satisfaction).
• Finally, the Age × Satisfaction interaction was significant
only in two types of love in Hendrick and Hendrick’s
(1986) typology, Agape and Storge, but there were no
significant interactions in any of Sternberg’s types
of love.

© 2020 The Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
PsyCh Journal
Considering that the number of variables in each model
is somewhat large, two figures that display these facts are
introduced. However, we must consider that the measuring
scales are different, given that the scores for Sternberg”s
typology fluctuate between 1 and 5 whereas those in the
model by Hendrick and Hendrick (1986) are between 1 and
9 (Figures 1 and 2). No figures were separately created for
both typologies to avoid duplicating their number.
Discussion and conclusions
When considering Sternberg’s typology, there are no differ-
ences according to the various age groups. However, all of
Sternberg’s love types vary when studied in terms of satis-
faction, with the general tendency that the higher the satis-
faction, the greater each is expressed. This means that the
three components of love established by the triangular the-
ory, in addition to the corresponding combinations, scored
higher with satisfaction. Satisfaction generates more nota-
ble types of love. Furthermore, the most predominant type
of love at all levels of satisfaction is empty love, which is
characterized by commitment without passion or intimacy.
The measures of the remaining types are similar.
The same does not apply to the scale by Hendrick and
Hendrick (1986). Thus, when this scale is used, differences
are observed in terms of age in three types of love (Storge,
Pragma, and Mania) and in terms of satisfaction in four
types of love (Eros, Ludus, Mania, and Agape), indicating
as a fixed pattern that lower satisfaction levels imply higher
scores on Eros and Agape. In the older age group, the
higher the satisfaction, the greater the prevalence of Ludus;
that is, love is experienced as a game in which interactions
are casual, with changing and diverse partners, little emo-
tional involvement, lack of future expectations, and avoid-
ance of intimacy and intensity.
Interestingly, age and satisfaction do not have a joint
influence. Indeed, satisfaction is a more explanatory vari-
able of the preference of a type of love than is age. These
results are consistent with the work of Sumter et al. (2013),
who found that teenagers have lower scores on the three
love components of Sternberg’s typology. In contrast with
Reeder (1996), who found that the three components of
Sternberg’s significantly decline with age, in our case they
increase. Our data partially endorse those of Acker and
Davis (1992), who only found lower scores on love types
in women.
© 2020 The Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
9
Moreover, the fact that satisfaction is positively related
to all love types in general has already been demonstrated
by Mônego and Teodoro (2011). In general, our results
confirm those in the works conducted specifically within
the so-called positive psychology (Bronk et al., 2009;
Huebner, 2004).
Regarding the hypotheses of this study, the first one indi-
cated that older people would tend to place more value on
Affection as a type of love; that is, valuing Intimacy, as
well as a sociable type of love, or company (union of Inti-
macy and Commitment). This hypothesis has been con-
firmed, but the fact that empty love is also largely valued
partly contradicts this idea. It was also hypothesized that
younger people would tend to place more value on infatua-
tion (based on Passion) and Romantic love (union of Inti-
macy and Passion), and especially on Fatuous love (union
of Passion and Commitment); this relation was not linear
because the youngest and oldest people do not present this
trend but instead the opposite. Interestingly, the types of
love, according to age, coincide more among the youngest
people (up to 19 years), and the oldest ones (>50 years)
coincided with each other more in the types of love
according to age. It was also hypothesized that Consum-
mate love would be valued more at intermediate ages;
indeed, in this case, the data confirm our hypothesis.
We confirmed the hypothesis within Hendrick and
Hendrick’s (1986) model that as people age, they would
place more value on the Storge model and Agape. How-
ever, the hypothesis that younger people would place more
value on Eros love (Passion), Ludus (characterized by
play), and on Mania (obsessive or compulsive love) was
not verified. As mentioned earlier, the youngest and oldest
place more value on these types of love. It was also hypoth-
esized that at intermediate adult ages, Pragmatic love would
predominate, and this was only partly confirmed; this
occurs between ages 20 and 32 years, but not between ages
33 and 50 years.
For satisfaction with life, it was hypothesized that people
who are more satisfied will present any kind of love of
those that integrate Sternberg’s model except for Empty
love, a kind of love that was hypothesized would be mani-
fest in people with less life satisfaction. The results indicate
that the hypothesis was not confirmed because Empty love
was mostly manifest in people who reported being more
satisfied with life. The same thing occurred with Affection
love, but not so much with other types of love, nor was the
hypothesis proposed with respect to Hendrick and
10
Hendrick’s (1986) model confirmed because Pragmatic love
does not manifest in people with less life satisfaction but
instead the opposite.
Finally, regarding the interaction between the two
selected variables age and satisfaction, it is hypothesized
that the interaction will produce significant effects under
Sternberg’s Consummate Love (Passion, Commitment, and
Intimacy), such that older people and people who are more
satisfied will place more value on that model. Similarly,
within Hendrick and Hendrick’s (1986) model, the same
will occur for Agape love. In this case, the hypothesis is
actually confirmed, and both types of love manifest in a
highly significant way.
In general, it can be concluded that age alone does not
usually produce significant differences in the types of love
and that younger people and older people both tend to be
similar in the types of love that they value, as compared to
people of intermediate ages. Satisfaction is more explana-
tory of the type of love preferred, but again, older and
younger people usually coincide. In addition, the most sat-
isfied people usually choose types of love with little impli-
cation and Commitment. Older people’s types of love,
Commitment and the conjunction of their forms usually
manifest when high satisfaction and both younger and older
ages interact. Therefore, the conjunction of the two inde-
pendent variables best explains the manifestation of a pref-
erence toward a particular type of love.
This study has the advantage of covering a wide age
range; however, this characteristic in turn implies the incon-
venience that the number of individuals for each level of
independent variables is reduced, despite the creation of
groups that are as homogeneous as possible when using
quartiles as cut-off points. Furthermore, although it is rare
to find such a range of ages in other studies, older partici-
pants imply a very large dispersion, given that the age
range covers a period of 40 years. Therefore, it is deemed
appropriate for future research to obtain information from
participants considered here as older, in at least two groups,
perhaps by using the age 65 as a cut-off point. Nowadays,
studies addressing intimacy, essentially based on the self-
determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000; La Guardia,
Ryan, Couchman, & Deci, 2000; Patrick, Knee,
Canevello, & Lonsbary, 2007) have not addressed the issue
of whether the three basic psychological needs that this the-
ory arises (autonomy, competence, and relatedness) show
variations depending on each type of love. Undoubtedly,
that validation poses a future challenge for further research.
© 2020 The Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
Satisfaction, age, and love
With a view to future research, it is also necessary to use
a random procedure of sample selection so that the sample
will have quotas of representativeness by sex and age. We
also consider that it would have been better to have per-
formed the study with only one of the typologies of love to
avoid the existence of such a large number of variables. In
this way, besides obtaining less redundant information, as
the results are quite similar for both typologies, more
causal data analysis techniques such as mediation analysis
or logistic regressions could be used. In any case, we think
that the work contributes to showing how love manifests at
all ages as of adolescence, and that although one type may
predominate over another as a function of age and general
satisfaction, all of types of love are always present.
Disclosure of conflict of interests
There are no financial disclosures nor of another type from
any authors.
Acknowledgments
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that
could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. There-
fore, there are no possible acknowledgments.
References
Abdel-Khalek, A. M. (2006). Measuring happiness with a single-
item scale. Social Behavior and Personality, 34(2), 139–149.
https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2006.34.2.139
Acker, M., & Davis, M. H. (1992). Intimacy, passion and commit-
ment in adult romantic relationships - a test of the triangular
theory of love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9
(1), 21–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407592091002
Andrade, A. L., Garcia, A., & Cassepp-Borges, V. (2013).
Evidências de validade da escala triangular do amor de Sternberg
- reduzida (ETAS-R) [Evidence of validity of Sternberg’s trian-
gular love scale - short version (ETAS-R)]. Psico-USF, 18(3),
501–510. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-82712013000300016
Atienza, F. L., Pons, D., Balaguer, I., & Garcia-Merita, M.
(2000). Propiedades psicométricas de la escala de satisfacción
con la vida en adolescentes [Psychometric properties of the
scale of life satisfaction in adolescents]. Psicothema, 12,
314–319.
Argyle, M. (1992). La Psicología de la felicidad [The psychology
of happiness]. Madrid: Alianza.
Aron, A., & Westbay, L. (1996). Dimensions of the prototype of
love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 535–
551. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.535
PsyCh Journal
Avia, M. D., & Vásquez, C. (1998). Optimismo inteligente.
Psicología de las emociones positivas [Intelligent optimism.
Psychology of positive emotions]. Madrid: Alianza.
Barrientos, J. (2005). Calidad devida, bienestar subjetivo: una
mirada psicosocial [Quality of life, subjective well-being: A
psychosocial look]. Universidad Diego Portales: Santiago de
Chile.
Berscheid, E., & Hatfield, E. (1969). Interpersonal attraction.
New York: Addison-Wesley.
Bronk, K. C., Hill, P. L., Lapsley, D. K., Talib, T. L., & Finch, H.
(2009). Purpose, hope, and life satisfaction in three age groups.
Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(6), 500–510. https://doi.org/
10.1080/17439760903271439
Buhl, T., & Hassebrauck, M. (1995). Love in 3-D - an empirical-
study on the triangulary theory by Sternberg. Zeitschrift Fur
Sozialpsychologie, 26, 67–77.
Cassepp-Borges, V., & Pasquali, L. (2012). Estudo nacional dos
atributos psicométricos da Escala triangular do amor de Stern-
berg [Sternberg’s triangular love scale national study of psycho-
metric attributes]. Paidéia, 22, 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1590/
S0103-863X2012000100004
Caycedo, E. C., Cubides, C. I., Martín, A., Cortés, O. F.,
Berman, S., Oviedo, A. M., & Suárez, I. (2007).
Relación entre el género y las experiencias de cortejo y
actitudes hacia las relaciones románticas en adolescentes
bogotanos [Relationship between gender and courtship
experiences and attitudes towards adolescent romantic rela-
tionships in Bogota]. Psicología desde el Caribe,
20, 76–92.
Chico, E., & Ferrando, P. J. (2008). Variables cognitivas y
afectivas Como predictoras de satisfacción en la vida [Cogni-
tive and affective variables as predictors of life satisfaction].
Psicothema, 20, 408–412.
Cummins, R., & Cahill, J. (2000). Avances en la comprensión de
la calidad de vida subjetiva [Advances in the understanding of
the subjective quality of life]. Intervención Psicosocial, 9,
185–198.
Deci, E. L., La Guardia, J. G., Moller, A. C., Scheiner, M. J., &
Ryan, R. M. (2006). On the benefits of giving as well as receiv-
ing autonomy support: Mutuality in close friendships. Person-
ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(3), 313–327. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0146167205282148
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal
pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behaviour.
Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/
S15327965PLI1104_01
Demir, M., & Özdemir, M. (2010). Friendship, need satisfaction
and happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11(2), 243–259.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-009-9138-5
Diener, E. (1994). El biene star subjetivo [Subjective well-beeing].
Intervención Psicosocial, 3, 67–113.
Diener, E. (1998). Subjective well-being and personality. In D. F.
Barone, M. Hersen, & V. B. Van Hasselt (Eds.), Advanced per-
sonality: The Plenum series in social/clinical psychology (pp.
311–334). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985).
The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assess-
ment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4
901_13
© 2020 The Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
11
Diener, E., Gohm, C. L., Suh, E., & Oishi, S. (2000). Similarity of
the relations between marital status and subjective well-
being across cultures. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology,
31(4), 419–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022100031004001
Diener, E., Kanazawa, S., Suh, E. M., & Oishi, S. (2016). Why
people are in a generally good mood. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 19(3), 235–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1088868314544467
Diener, E., Suh, E., Lucas, R., & Smith, H. (1999). Subjetive
well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulle-
tin, 125(2), 276–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.
2.276
Diener, E., Suh, E., & Oishi, S. (1997). Recent findings on subjec-
tive well-being. Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology,
24, 25–41.
Diessner, R., Frost, N., & Smith, T. (2004). Describing the neo-
classical psyche embedded in Sternberg’s triangular theory of
love. Social Behavior and Personality, 32(7), 683–690. https://
doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2004.32.7.683
Dyrdal, G. M., Røysamb, E., Nes, R. B., & Vittersø, J. (2011).
Can a happy relationship predict a happy life? A population-
based study of maternal well- being during the life transition of
pregnancy, infancy, and toddlerhood. Journal of Happiness
Studies, 12, 947–962.
Ferrer, V. A., Bosch, E., Navarro, C., Ramis, M. C., & García, E.
(2008). El concepto de amor en España [The concept of love in
Spain]. Psicothema, 20, 589–595.
Gable, S. L., Gonzaga, G. C., & Strachman, A. (2006). Will you
be there for me when things go right? Supportive responses to
positive event disclosures. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 91(5), 904–917. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.91.5.904
Garcia-Viniegras, C., & González, I. (2000). La categoría
bienestar psicológico, su relación con otras categorías sociales
[Category psychological well-being, their relationship with
other social categories]. Revista Cubana de Medicina Integral,
16, 586–592.
Gerstorf, D., Windsor, T. D., Hoppmann, C. A., &
Butterworth, P. (2013). Longitudinal change in spousal similar-
ities in mental health: Between-couple and within-couple per-
spectives. Psychology and Aging, 28(2), 540–554. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0032902
Gouveia, V., Milfont, T., Fonseca, P., & Coelho, J. A. (2009).
Life satisfaction in Brazil: Testing the psychometric properties
of the satisfaction with life scale (SwLS) in five Brazilian sam-
ples. Social Indicators Research, 90, 267. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11205-008-9257-0
Gustavson, K., Nilsen, W., Ørstavik, R., & Røysamb, E. (2014).
Relationship quality, divorce, and well-being: Findings from a
three-year longitudinal study. Journal of Positive Psychology, 9
(2), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2013.858274
Hatfield, E., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: The-
ory and research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Hatfield, E., & Walster, G. W. (1985). A new look at love.
Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as
an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 52(3), 511–524. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.
52.3.511
12
Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. (1986). A theory and method of
love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(2),
392–402. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.392
Huebner, E. S. (2004). Research on assessment of life satisfaction
of children and adolescents. Social Indicators Research, 66,
3–33. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SOCI.0000007497.57754.e3
Kansky, J., Allen, J. P., & Diener, E. (2016). Early adolescent affect
predicts later life outcomes. Applied Psychology-Health and Well
Being, 8(2), 192–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12068
Kwon, S. (2006). The evaluation and factor structures of love.
Journal of Educational Evaluation, 19, 261–280.
La Guardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Deci, E. L.
(2000). Within-person variation in security of attachment: A
SDT perspective on attachment, need fulfillment, and well-
being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(3),
367–384. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.79.3.367
Lee, J. A. (1973). The colours of love. Ontario: New Press.
Masuda, M. (2003). Meta-analyses of love scales: Do various love
scales measure the same psychological constructs? Japanese
Psychological Research, 45(1), 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/
1468-5884.00030
Martínez, G. S., & Fernández, M. C. (1993). The Sternberg theory
of love - An empirical analysis. Psicothema, 5, 151–167.
Mônego, B. G., & Teodoro, M. L. M. (2011). A teoria triangular
do amor de Sternberg eo modelodos cinco grandes fatores
[Sternberg’s triangular theory of love and the big five factor
model]. Psico-USF, 16, 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-
82712011000100011
Moyano-Diaz, E., & Ramos-Alvarado, N. (2007). Bienestar sub-
jetivo: Midiendo satisfacción vital, felicidad y salud en
población chilena de la región Maule. Revista Universum, 22.
Retrieved from http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_
arttext&pid=S0718-23762007000200012.
Nuñez, J., Martín-Albo, J., & Domínguez, E. (2010). Propiedades
psicométricas de la Escala de Satisfacción con la vida en sujetos
practicantes de actividad física [Psychometric properties of the
scale of satisfaction with life in subjects practitioners of physical
activity]. Revista de Psicología del Deporte, 19, 291–304.
Ovalle, O., & Martinez, J. (2008). La felicidad como medida del
bienestar y calidad de vida: Una perspectiva económica [Happi-
ness as a measure of well-being and quality of life: An eco-
nomic perspective]. Synthesis, 46, 1–6.
Palomar, J. (2004). Poverty and subjective well-being in Mexico.
Social Indicators Research, 68(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:
SOCI.0000025567.04153.46
Patrick, H., Knee, C. R., Canevello, A., & Lonsbary, C. (2007).
The role of need fulfillment in relationship functioning and
well-being: A SDT perspective. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 92(3), 434–457. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0022-3514.92.3.434
Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the satisfaction with
life scale. Psychological Assessment, 5(2), 164–172. https://doi.
org/10.1037/1040-3590.5.2.164
Pavot, W., Diener, E., Colvin, C. R., & Sandvik, E. (1991). Fur-
ther validation of the satisfaction with life scale - evidence for
the cross-method convergence of well-being measures. Journal
of Personality Assessment, 57(1), 149–161. https://doi.org/10.
1207/s15327752jpa5701_17
© 2020 The Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
Satisfaction, age, and love
Peloquin, K., Brassard, A., Delisle, G., & Bedard, M. M. (2013).
Integrating the attachment, caregiving, and sexual systems into
the understanding of sexual satisfaction. Canadian Journal of
Behavioural Science-Revue Canadienne Des Sciences du Com-
portement, 45(3), 185–195. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033514
Pons, D., Atienza, F. L., Balaguer, I., & Garcia-Merita, M. L.
(2002). Propiedades psicométricas de la escala de satisfacción
con la Vida en personas de tercera edad [Psychometric properties
of the scale of life satisfaction in seniors]. Revista Iberoamericana
de Diagnóstico y Evaluación Psicológica, 13, 71–82.
Proulx, C. M., Helms, H. M., & Buehler, C. (2007). Marital qual-
ity and personal well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Mar-
riage and Family, 69(3), 576–593. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1741-3737.2007.00393.x
Reeder, H. M. (1996). The subjective experience of love through
adult life. International Journal of Aging & Human Develop-
ment, 43(4), 325–340. https://doi.org/10.2190/V7J3-XQAL-
2X59-M16X
Rubin, Z. (1973). Liking and loving: An invitation to social psy-
chology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Schimmack, U., & Lucas, R. E. (2010). Environmental influences
on well-being: A dyadic latent panel analysis of spousal simi-
larity. Social Indicators Research, 98, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11205-009-9516-8
Shaver, P. R., Hazan, C., & Bradshaw, D. (1988). Love as attach-
ment: The integration of three behavioural systems. In
R. J. Sternberg & M. Barnes (Eds.), The anatomy of love
(pp. 68–98). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological
Review, 93(2), 119–136. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.
2.119
Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Liking vs. living: A comparative evalua-
tion of theories. Psychological Bulletin, 102(2), 331–345.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.102.3.331
Sternberg, R. J. (1998a). Cupid’s arrow: The course of love
through time. London: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1998b). El amor es como una historia [Love is
like a story]. Barcelona: Paidós.
Sumter, S. R., Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2013). Perceptions
of love across the lifespan: Differences in passion, intimacy, and
commitment. International Journal of Behavioral Development,
37(5), 417–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025413492486
Veenhoven, R. (1994). El estudio de la satisfacción con la vida
[The study of life satisfaction]. Intervención Psicosocial, 3,
87–116.
Veenhoven, R. (2001). What we know about happiness. Rotter-
dam: Erasmus University.
Yela, C. (1997). Curso temporal de los componentes básicos del
amor a lo largo de la relación de pareja [Temporal course of
basic components of love along the couple relationship].
Psicothema, 9, 1–15.
Yela, C. (2006). The evaluation of love - simplified version of the
scales for Yela’s tetrangular model based on Sternberg’s model.
European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 22, 21–27.
https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.22.1.21
Yun-Jeong, K., & Young, S. S. (2005). Romantic relationship in
middle and old aged married couples. Journal of the Korea
Gerontological Society, 25, 87–102.