Love and Intimacy, Psychology of

Panos Kordoutis, Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences, Athens, Greece
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
This article is a revision of the previous edition article by H.T. Reis, volume 13, pp. 9091–9094, Ó 2001, Elsevier Ltd.

Abstract

Intimacy occurs when two people are responsive to each other, self-disclose, and demonstrate involvement behaviors. This
interactive process may culminate in love and the establishment of a close relationship. Love is the evolutionary result of
innate bonding and mating systems such as attachment, caregiving, and sex. It is a variable experience taking the form of
attachment, compassionate, companionate, or romantic love. Love styles are relational attitudes about love. Love types result
from combining intimacy, passion, and commitment. Love stories explain the social origin of love’s meaning and change.
Companionate love features are prominent in laypersons’ love prototypes.

If close relationships form the foundation and theme of the
human condition, love and intimacy represent the invisible
master plan that humans apply in building their close rela-
tionships throughout their lifetimes. The two concepts are
often closely associated in popular and scientific discourse as
they capture core phenomenological experiences and processes
involved in the initiation, development, and maintenance of
relationships. They both reflect the universal and biologically
ingrained human need to create and maintain dyadic attach-
ments, affiliations, and networks of interdependence which
secure that a cohesive and self-perpetuating community
supports and maximizes individual well-being. At the indi-
vidual level, love and intimacy directly or indirectly affect
personal well-being; self-worth; and the motivation for self-
expansion, social-adjustment, and community connectedness.
At the close relationship level, they affect both relationship
stability and longevity, perceptions or relationship quality,
satisfaction, expectations about the relationship, and the
motivation of maintaining it (Berscheid and Regan, 2005).
Intimacy has for the most part been viewed as a dynamic
interactive process between two people that enhances their
motivation to keep engaging in behaviors that may gradually
increase knowledge of each other, mutual understanding, and
bonding. In contrast, love has been studied as a phenomeno-
logical cognitive–affective state, resulting from a broad range of
processes including intimacy. In our discussion of intimacy, we
will first analyze the specific qualitative characteristics of the
behavioral patterns that people elicit in interpersonal contacts.
Subsequently, we will describe a model that attempts to
explain by means of what process, the interacting behavioral
patterns elicited by the dyad involved in the interpersonal
contact, generate, maintain, and augment intimacy.
Intimacy as a Relationship Process
Intimacy may well refer to a transient experience of sharing
private personal information with another fellow human
being, such as an unknown fellow traveler, sitting next to us, on
a long transatlantic flight. However, it usually refers to entire
patterns of verbal and nonverbal behaviors occurring at the
onset or within a relationship, which bear characteristics
consistently reflecting motivation for (1) self-disclosure, (2)
self-involvement, and (3) responsiveness, that is for seeking
signs of interest and involvement on behalf of the other person
(Laurenceau et al., 2004a,b; Prager, 2000; Prager and Roberts,
2004; Reis et al., 2004).
Self-Disclosure
Self-disclosure may include revealing objective private infor-
mation about the self as well as expressing motives, needs,
wants, goals, fears, and feelings in general (Laurenceau et al.,
2004a,b). For instance, individuals may talk about their
personal history, relationships with family members, impor-
tant career milestones, people who have influenced their lives,
past positive and negative/traumatic experiences, past failed
relationships, sadness, risks, hurt, pain, emotional nakedness,
feelings of being a special person, superior or inferior to others,
privileged or flawed, and so on. At the initiation of a close
relationship, the objective of self-disclosure behaviors is to
establish (1) the subjective perception of a virtual safety zone
between the two interacting individuals, so that the more
vulnerable aspects of the self can be communicated and
exposed without the apparent risk of getting hurt, (2) to make
self fully known to other for what it is, for its brighter and
darker sides, and (3) to seek understanding and acceptance and
ultimately claim unconditional positive regard for what the self
is as a whole. To the extent that these objectives have been
attained, intimacy’s role shifts to transforming each relation-
ship member’s perception of his/her individual outcome
interdependence in the relationship. The interdependent part-
ners acquire a ‘we’ perspective and by perceiving relationship
outcomes as own, they tend to pursue maximization of joint
gain. Intimacy transforms the relationship into a union of trust
(Kelley, 1983/2002; Rusbult et al., 2004).
Involvement Behaviors
Involvement behaviors are, for the most part, nonverbal and
convey attentiveness, interest, and active participation in the
interaction with other (Prager, 2000). People may thus actively
seek eye contact and gaze at each other for an extended time,
may sit closer to one another, assume open posture, lean

International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 14 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.24072-5 375
376 Love and Intimacy, Psychology of
forward, gesture, smile or in other ways show facial animation,
and nod their heads while listening and talking. As interactions
among the intimate couple unfold and multiply, touch is
among the behaviors that may further intensify the intimacy
experience. Invited touch of parts of the body that have been
identified as vulnerable, such as the face or the torso is very
likely to yield strong feelings of intimacy. These feelings are
intensified when individuals sustain the touch, as in the case of
embracing other or when placing arms around the shoulder or
the waist. When the interaction between two individuals has
ensued from initial sexual attraction, or intimacy has brought
about sexual attraction, sexual contacts and sexual intercourse
among the couple can escalate behaviors of intimacy and the
breadth and depth of the experienced intimacy. However,
sexual touch or sexual expressions do not necessarily bring
about intimacy. When interacting parties have the subjective
feeling that the ‘safety zone,’ mentioned above, protecting the
more vulnerable aspects of self from exposure, is not in place,
sexual advances or any involvement behavior may irreversibly
hamper intimacy or destroy the relationship per se.
Involvement may also be expressed by means of verbal
behavior that conveys either the message of desired proximity
or simply positive affect for being close. The functional objec-
tive of involvement behaviors in establishing intimacy is to
demonstrate behavioral intention for approaching and getting
involved with other and to test other’s responsiveness and
behavioral intention for approaching self. In developing and
maintaining a relationship, involvement behaviors mainly
function to maintain immediacy of emotional reward among
the couple and support mutual interdependence with positive
affect and management of negative affect.
When people are motivated to initiate and maintain inti-
mate relationships, they increase the frequency of involvement
behaviors, actively employ a broad range of modes of
communicating (phone, texting, e-mailing, social media, etc.),
and subjectively ‘make time’ to engage in interactions.
Responsiveness
Responsiveness refers to the active and focused attention, the
discerning perception, and the timely and sensitive response to
what is being said and done by other during an intimate
interaction (Prager, 2000; Reis et al., 2004). Responsiveness in
intimate interactions requires that the nature of disclosure and
involvement behaviors emitted by other, first be identified for
what they are, second be discerned for the specific intention or
content expressed, and third be addressed in one way or
another or ignored.
Responsiveness behaviors may be both verbal and
nonverbal and their function is to denote that the disclosing
person is followed and understood with attention and
empathy. In particular, nonverbal behaviors play a substantial
role in people’s experience of intimacy perhaps due to their
immediate association with affective reactions and the fact that
they are, at least, partially involuntary. Such behaviors may
include attentive listening, head nodding, eye contact and
gazing, variation of voice tones, facial expressions, smiles,
gestures and body postures such as leaning forward or
assuming an open posture. Occasional bodily contact, such as
hugging and touching other in a heartening and reassuring
manner during critical disclosing moments, may also occur.
Although such behaviors superficially resemble behaviors of
involvement, they are essentially different because their func-
tion is to facilitate disclosure (e.g., by establishing appropriate
physical distance) and other’s voluntary choice for testing
engagement in involvement behaviors. Short and extensive or
elaborate verbal responses in intimate interactions also func-
tion to communicate that the listener is interested in what is
being said and willing to listen further and invest time in the
interaction. Moreover, they can overtly convey understanding,
acceptance, respect, and genuine care.
Partners of a close relationship recognize each other’s
responsiveness by using four procedural criteria: (1) How often
other responds to one’s communicative behaviors and how
predictable are their responses. High frequency indicates high
responsiveness, whereas predictability creates a sense of
familiarity and warmth, as other seems to ‘always’ understand
own behavior; (2) How many of own behaviors are responded
to by other appropriately, that is taking into consideration their
exact content (obviously, the statement ‘I am desperate’ cannot
be responded with ‘shall we have something to eat?’); (3) How
many of the responses are suitably elaborate; in some interac-
tions initially responding ‘I understand’ or ‘I know’ to ‘I am sad’
may be fitting, whereas in others a more extended answer
would have been more welcome; and (4) How timely are the
responses; timely response suggests reassuring predictability of
other’s behavior toward self, which in turn implies controlla-
bility. If these criteria are met, relationship partners feel that
other values the relationship and their interaction, otherwise
partners feel frustrated and the relationship may lead to
dissolution.
Disclosure, involvement, and responsiveness behavioral
patterns do not function independently, but are sensitive and
proactive/reactive to the onset of each other, the timing and the
source of expression. Actually, intimacy seems to result from
a highly interactive, recurrent cybernetic loop among the
behavioral patterns elicited by the two communicating indi-
viduals. Thus, the dyadic generation of intimacy needs to be
effectively depicted by a process model. Below, we roughly
outline such a model based on the influential interpersonal
model of intimacy that has been proposed by Reis and Shaver
(1988), Laurenceau et al. (2004b).
A Dyadic Intimacy Process Model: Disclosure, Involvement,
and Responsiveness at Work
The model describes intimacy as an interpersonal interaction
between A and B that goes through a preconditional proactive–
reactive stage (I), a mediating perceptive stage (II), and an
outcome stage (III). The latter stage may feed back into stage
I, regulating the continuation of the intimacy interaction
cycle, the shifting of the proactive or reactive roles (e.g.,
disclosing vs listening), its climaxing or anticlimaxing, and/or
eventual stop:
I. This stage starts off with proactive self-disclosure behaviors
on the part of A. It may be a piece of private information or
a feeling or both e.g., ‘I am so sad.’ or ‘I am so sad, I just
broke up with my relationship.’ It continues with reactive
or responsive behaviors on the part of B. They could

be a verbal response timely expressed, e.g., ‘Why? What
happened?’ accompanied by an eye contact showing
sympathy. B may also sit closer, showing readiness to listen
and encourage A to talk about his or her feelings. While
listening, B may follow A by maintaining eye contact, head
nodding, and using facial expressions to demonstrate
understanding, sympathy, and support. On the other
hand, B’s responsive behaviors may denigrate or ‘invali-
date’ the feeling expressed or show disinterest and change
the subject, e.g., by saying ‘Oh, breaking up is always sad
for everyone! Are you going to watch the Oscars tonight?’
II. If A perceives B’s responsive behaviors as demonstrating
that (1) she is being followed and understood for what she
says, (2) she is validated, that is the significance of the
contents of self-disclosure is recognized for what it is and
the discloser is respected for her experiences and feelings,
(3) she is cared for, as a person, that is B seems to be to
a greater or lesser extent emotionally involved with her,
then stage III, the outcome stage is activated.
III. A perceives B’s reactions as a positive outcome of the
interaction and a sign that more proactive intimacy
behaviors may be rewardingly tried out by him or her
(that is, by A). At the same time, such reactions work as
a predictive sign that similar proactive behaviors are to be
expected from the other party (B). In this case, the process
is repeated across time and even across different settings
with A and B exchanging roles (proactive vs reactive). The
feedback loop (I–III) may climax with even more intense
and diverse self-disclosure, responsiveness, and involve-
ment behaviors.
When the recurrent functioning of the intimacy model’s
feedback loop, and the spiraling exchange of disclosure,
responsiveness, and involvement behaviors is mutually
rewarding, the intimacy process may be sustained for a long
period of time, across multiple and diverse interactions.
Eventually, the interacting parties start exerting strong,
frequent, and diverse effects on one another (Kelley, 1983/
2002), establishing a close or ‘intimate’ relationship.
Love
Love can better be understood as the subjective perception of
an affective–cognitive state that may have resulted from
dyadic intimacy as well as any of several relationship
processes occurring in multiple dyadic, community, or other
contexts, ranging from the romantic relationships, family
relationships, one’s fellow human beings, or even one’s
relationship with God (Berscheid and Regan, 2005). Indeed,
love is a broad, multifaceted concept and although it is
relatively easy to self-report when experienced, it is nearly
impossible to define in abstract terms, without reference to
its specific characteristics and the relationship settings in
which it occurs (Kelley, 1983/2002).
In our discussion of love, we will first present the bio-
psychological perspective, which views love as the by-product
of two biological processes that have assisted humans in
successfully responding to the evolutionary challenges of
social living and reproduction; one refers to the human
Love and Intimacy, Psychology of 377
bonding, the other to mate selection. Then, we will present
the taxonomies of love, that is theorizing about the contextual
variations in the meaning of love from both a scientific and
a lay perspective.
The Biopsychological Perspective
Shaver et al. (1988) in their highly influential theory on
romantic love, based in part on Bowlby’s (1979) ethological
theory of attachment, suggest that there are three innate
motivational systems: attachment, caregiving, and sex. All three
have evolved over the course of human development to
increase the likelihood that the vulnerable human infant,
which requires nurturing support for an extended period of
time, will survive and reach a reproductive age. Each system has
different aims and dictates different strategies in achieving
these aims. The aim of the attachment system is to help the
person establish a psychological bond with an attachment
figure, so that he or she can seek shelter when coming across
a threat and feel that relationships, in general, can be more or
less predictable and trustworthy. The caregiving system yields
protection and support for significant others in need. The
sexual system secures that sexual partners approach and focus
on each other at the expense of other activities or others with
the aim of reproduction. Each of the three motivational
systems may receive different feedback from the infant’s or
child’s caregiver (usually the mother) and his or her significant
others. In turn, the infant or child, based on this feedback,
establishes behavioral strategies or patterns of probabilistic
responses to relational stimuli that guide his or her relating
behavior later, in adult life, including mating and romantic
relationship behavior.
Research (Shaver and Mikulincer, 2006, 2011) has examined
individual differences in attachment strategies (secure, avoidant,
and anxious) and their association to the other two systems.
More specifically, securely attached people are more likely than
nonsecurely attached ones to provide effective care to a needy
partner as they have a stringer sense of efficacy and controlla-
bility in coping with distress. They also tend to be more
responsive and caring. In contrast, avoidant people are less
willing to be compassionate to others and provide care.
Anxiously attached people are preoccupied with their own needs
and are thus unable to react to others’ suffering with empathy. In
contrast, they react with own distress which hampers their ability
to provide effective, sensitive, and unintrusive care. In terms of
sexual expression, anxiously attached people seek to maintain
their own protection and security and would have trouble
attending to their partner’s sexual needs and preferences. They
tend to use sex to reassure themselves and cast off their fear of
abandonment. Avoidants may feel uneasy during sexual inter-
course that requires even the minimum of intimacy, as they
dislike exposure to vulnerability and openness; they tend to
dismiss care and avoid intimacy often involved in sexual inter-
course. Avoidant people may also be using sex instrumentally, as
a way of manipulating others in pursuing ulterior goals.
Fisher’s (2006) neurological approach also proposes three
different brain-based systems: the sex drive, attachment, and
attraction. Sexual desire springs out of the sex drive system, and
aims at successful reproduction. Attachment refers to nest
building, the establishment of proximity with other, and mutual
378 Love and Intimacy, Psychology of
caregiving. Attraction describes investing energy and time at
focusing on one particular mate and on mate-guarding. Fisher’s
sex drive and attachment systems resemble Shaver’s sexuality
and attachment systems, respectively. However, Fisher’s
definition of ‘attraction’ is more clearly associated with
passionate and romantic love. By contrast, Shaver’s
conceptualization of the caregiving system is more related to
compassionate or companionate love. All three kinds of love
will be discussed in the taxonomies of love section.
The functioning of the systems proposed above seems to be
supported by biobehavioral mechanisms, common in
mammals, including humans (Leckman et al., 2006). For
instance, the contention of attachment system (Shaver’s) and
attraction systems that falling in love is stressful and may thus
require anxiety regulation is in consonance with the finding of
increased cortisol levels among passionate lovers. On the other
hand, peptides, such as oxytocin, have been found to reduce and
relax the anxiety involved in both passionate love attachment
and other forms of bonding. Low serotonin levels seem to be
responsible for anxious obsessive behaviors often observed in
people in love.
The evolutionary approach to love (Kenrick, 2006) states that
different kinds of love are relevant to different problems humans
have encountered during their evolution. For instance, humans
need to attract potential mates; once they do so, they have to
maintain a relationship with them for a significant time period
so that their offspring is taken care off in the best possible way. In
responding to this problem, males, generally, have acquired the
bias to ascribe more importance to attractiveness in females,
because attractiveness serves as a cue to fertility. In contrast,
females, in selecting and, more particularly, in maintaining
a mate pay attention to his status, that is to his ability to provide
for the offspring. Thus evolutionary problems such as mate-
seeking and parental care, that require different solutions, may
have dictated the development of different kinds of love. The
former may be subjectively perceived as being primarily
focused on sexuality and passion, whereas the latter on
caregiving and attachment.
Love Taxonomies
Taxonomies of love are the result of systematic efforts to orga-
nize the multiplicity of phenomena described under the use of
the word ‘love’ in the broad array of social contexts it usually
occurs. Love taxonomies are useful not only because they facil-
itate us in describing similar observable phenomena associated
with each kind of love, but also because they help us understand
the causes of such phenomena and predict their future course
(Kelley, 1983/2002).
The Quadrumvirate of Love
Ellen Berscheid (2006) has suggested that the already discussed
attachment love and three more kinds of love can cover all love-
associated phenomena. Thus, below we turn to the discussion of
compassionate, companionate, and romantic love.
Compassionate love motivates altruistic interest for another’s
welfare as well as actions to promote it (see also Fehr and
Sprecher, 2009; Sprecher and Fehr, 2005). It has also been
labeled ‘altruistic,’ ‘charitable,’ ‘brotherly,’ ‘communal’ love,
‘agape,’ and ‘B-love’; behaviors associated with it have also been
studied under different names, such as ‘prosocial behavior,’
‘caregiving,’ ‘support behaviors,’ and ‘communal
responsiveness’ (Clark and Monin, 2006). Individuals
engaging in compassionate love do not expect that their
actions will be reciprocated. Compassionate love is based on
the caregiving system described in the context of Attachment
Theory. Humans are born weak and vulnerable, and in order
to survive and reach reproductive age, they need the
‘asymmetrical’ support of an older, stronger, and wiser
member of their species. The survival utility of this asymmetry
has been inherited to our species members over evolutionary
time. Compassionate love involves responsiveness to clear or
discreet signs of need, sensitivity in understanding the nature
of the need, and unobtrusive behaviors to alleviate it.
In contrast to compassionate love, companionate love (see
also Hatfield, 1991) is contingent upon rewards and punish-
ments. The evolutionary and survival value of the pain–pleasure
principle, basic to learning and behavioral theories, underlies this
kind of love. People love those who love them back, or more
precisely those who reward them. Companionate love has
been discussed in the past under terms such as ‘liking,’
‘friendship love,’ ‘philias,’ ‘affiliation,’ ‘pragmatic love,’ and
‘affection.’ Companionate love relationships are often based on
characteristics that are intrinsically rewarding to both
relationship partners such as physical attractiveness; familiarity;
similarities in background, goals, and values; and common
interests. Companionate love relationships are characterized by
physical or virtual proximity, stability, positive feelings,
mutually predictable and responsive behaviors, mutual
recognition and acceptance, and the exchange of actual
rewards. Intimate couples who experience companionate love
feel that their lives are deeply interdependent; they see,
understand, and accept each other for what they really are and
tend to be best friends. Finally, they show mutual affection and
concern for each other’s welfare, have positive feelings for their
partner, and tend to prioritize his or her needs against those of
third parties.
Romantic love has been studied under names such as
‘passionate,’ ‘erotic,’ and ‘addictive’ love (see also Hatfield, 1991;
Hatfield et al., 2007). It rises out of sexual desire and is based, to
a large extent, on the neurochemical mechanisms we have
previously discussed. Of course, romantic love is hardly limited
to sexual desire. In attempting to capture its rich phenome-
nology, one has to unveil its cognitive, affective, and behavioral
components. Cognitions reflecting romantic love include ideal-
ization of partner and the relationship, intrusive and often
obsessive thinking about them, and a strong desire to know
them and be known (self-disclosure). Emotions of romantic love
comprise attraction, sexual attraction in particular, intense and
conflicting feelings, elation and bliss, anguish and disappoint-
ment, as well as longing for reciprocity. Behaviors indicating
romantic love include ‘studying’ the other person, trying to ‘read’
and determine their feelings, providing service to them, and
maintaining physical closeness. Further, individuals in love tend
to behave toward their loved ones according to their imaginary
expectations about them, rather than according to realistic
appraisals (Snyder et al., 1977; Berscheid and Regan, 2005). At
the same time, as the basis of relating is fleeting and volatile
emotionality, the ensuing relationship tends to be unstable,
unpredictable, and sometimes unrealistic. Lovers do not see each

other as actual persons with real needs, but as projections of how
they would like them to be (Hendrick and Hendrick, 2000;
Berscheid and Regan, 2005).
As passion also tends to quickly deplete the organism’s
resources, romantic love withers away and cannot support the
relationship for long. For this reason, relationships solely based
on romantic love do not fare well in the long run. In the best case
scenario, as romantic love grows weaker, companionate love,
enhanced by intimacy built up, may gradually replace it, stabi-
lizing the relationship and placing it on a more realistic basis.
Romantic and companionate love, are not mutually exclusive;
both kinds seem to be present at the initiation of a relationship
and may function in a complementary rather than competitive
fashion. In fact, most couples report that their lover is also their
best friend (Hendrick and Hendrick, 2000; Berscheid and Regan,
2005).
Love styles
Love styles are ideologies of love or belief–attitude systems
about how one loves other; they may not be necessarily
subjectively perceived or consciously stated as such, but they
are certainly expressed in interactions with others in intimate
settings (Hendrick and Hendrick, 2006). In that sense, they
can be construed as interpersonal cognitions about loving
others that loosely dictate romantic social behavior. Thus, love
styles are constructs comprising beliefs and attitudes about
loving, relational personality traits, and a variable emotional
core, reflecting the general need for affiliation. There are six
dominant love styles: Eros (passionate, erotic, or romantic
love), Ludus (game-playing uncommitted love), Storge
(friendship or companionate love), Pragma (practical,
calculating, and instrumental love), mania (possessive,
obsessional, or dependent love), and Agape (altruistic or
compassionate love). Plenty of studies have addressed research
questions on the association between love styles and
demographic, personality factors, and relationship outcome
variables (e.g., satisfaction, sexuality, adjustment, quality,
stability, longevity) (Hendrick and Hendrick, 2006; Neto, 2012).
The Duplex Theory of Love: The Triangular Theory of Love and
the Theory of Love as a Story
The Triangular Theory of Love defines the concept of love struc-
turally, in terms of its components. By understanding the func-
tions and interrelationships of love components, Sternberg
(2006) attempts to grasp the variations in the meaning of
love, as well as the variability in behaviors associated with it.
The Triangular Theory of Love
According to the Triangular Theory of Love (2004), there are
three components of love that can be metaphorically viewed as
the three vertices of triangle. These are intimacy, passion, and
decision/commitment and can be identified in various forms in
older theories; moreover, they are intuitively meaningful to
laypersons (Aron and Westbay, 1996). The component of inti-
macy comprises the phenomenological outcomes of the inti-
macy process that we have previously discussed. These are
feelings of closeness, warmth and bonding, communication,
understanding, caring, compassion, and empathy. Similarly, the
passion component includes feelings familiar from our
description of romantic love, such as sexual arousal and intense
Love and Intimacy, Psychology of 379
desire, longing for other’s presence, obsession with the loved
one, excitement, energy, enthusiasm, a sense that attraction is
inevitable, and that attachment to other was destined. The
decision/commitment component, in the short term, refers to
the realization and decision that one loves other and is interested
to enter and tentatively remain in a relationship. In the long
term, it is the decision to be committed in maintaining it.
Sternberg further proposes that the three components can be
combined in eight possible limiting cases where the amount or
proportion of each component is, for reasons of illustration,
estimated to the maximum (or is fully present) and to the
minimum (or is entirely absent). Thus, (1) absence of all the
three components is nonlove, (2) intimacy alone is what we
experience as liking, (3) passion alone is nothing but infatua-
tion, (4) commitment by itself is empty love, (5) intimacy
combined with passion without commitment is romantic love,
(6) intimacy combined with commitment without passion is
companionate love, (7) passion plus commitment without
intimacy is fatuous love, and (8) intimacy combined with both
passion and commitment is consummate or complete love. On
an individual basis, all three components are strongly associated
with happiness and satisfaction in relationships. Couples,
however, tend to be happier to the extent that the balance
among intimacy, passion, and commitment each of them desires
approximates that of the other. For example, a couple may
experience distress, if one of them wants a lot of passion but not
much commitment and the other wants a lot of commitment
while has no motivation to engage in full passion or wishes to
withhold passion.
Structural analysis cannot inform us on the social origin and
importance of love components, nor does it account about the
dynamic change of love component combinations within
a relationship. The theory of Love as a Story (Sternberg, 1995,
2006) explains where the meaning of love components comes
from and how component contents and combinations may
change over time in one’s own relationship or across
relationships.
The Theory of Love as a Story
Love Stories are guiding metaphors similar to cognitive schemata
or scenarios that help people predict and possibly control the
behavior of other and self within an intimate relationship.
Stories come from our experiences with narratives, tales, books,
TV series and movies, and observation of the relationships of our
parents, our friends’ parents, and our own. Stories have protag-
onists and require the casting of the ‘supporting role,’ that is of
a partner who can fit the scenario and will accept to play the role.
Some are willing to do so, some will not, and ask for the scenario
to be edited or even changed. Compatibility or complementarity
between the two basic roles and compatibility between role and
scenario are of critical importance for relationship satisfaction
and other relationship outcomes. Individuals differ in their
flexibility to negotiate and edit or even change their preferred
relationship love story. Our stories evolve and may change over
time. However, we carry a hierarchy of preferred love stories and
we are happier when we succeed in inviting someone to ‘play’ in
our most preferred one. In contrast, if we eventually concede to
participate in a story that is not high in our hierarchy, that
relationship will probably yield less satisfaction for us and we are
more likely to abandon it for a story higher in our hierarchy.
380 Love and Intimacy, Psychology of
Research has identified a variety of about 26 common stories
(Sternberg, 1995, 2006). Examples are (1) the fairy tale story, in
which the protagonist is a prince or a princess, they expect that
special other and live happily ever after, (2) the business story,
according to which a relationship is run like a business with
gains and losses, partners can make practical agreements and
plans, (3) the travel story, in which partners travel together,
along the same path, to a common destination, (4) the police
story, in which one partner (the policeman) sets the rules and is
always vigilant that other observes them, (5) the horror story, in
which one partner abuses the other, (6) the collector story,
according to which one partner collects lovers and admires them
as showcase of precious objects. Research has shown that some
stories are more adaptive than others (e.g., the travel and the
fairy tale story vs the horror or the police story) as they help the
individual adjust better to the relationship, while the relation-
ship per se yields better outcomes. Couples have also been found
to be more satisfied when their story hierarchies match.
The Prototype Approach
Seeking a breakthrough to the difficulties associated with
defining love, Fehr (1994, 2006) resorted to people themselves
and their own understanding of the love concept. The love
prototype is based on spontaneously elicited features of love as
well as on measuring how important these features are to
laypersons in cognitively representing the concept. Prototype
research found that companionate love features were clearly
predominant in the lay perception of love. For example, features
consistently found include trust, caring, honesty, friendship, and
respect. Even when features were listed explicitly for romantic
love, trust, honesty, and happiness ranked well above passion
and sexuality. On the other hand, the same line of research has
revealed that the romantic–companionate love distinction is
meaningful and valid to laypersons.
Conclusion
Intimacy is the subtle process that brings to bear love, although
potent feelings of romantic or passionate love may be initiated
before even the timid steps of intimacy development have been
taken. Indeed, romantic love only needs sexual desire, realism
enough to focus on the desirable aspects of other, and a lot of
imagination to augment them while disregarding undesirable
aspects. Its evolutionary role is to lure the couple into the
deceptive magic of love, away from daily concerns and other
interests. Nevertheless, it is intimacy that will enhance the cli-
maxing of romantic love and the one that will secure basic
relationship functioning when passion inevitably subsides;
intimacy will prepare the rise of companionate love that may
eventually support the continuation and longevity of the close
relationship.
Love, of course, is not limited to close relationships and
thus intimacy is not important only for the romantic couple.
Being sensitive and responsive to others, as intimacy suggests,
is the basis upon which compassionate love thrives. Being
‘asymmetrically’ responsive to the need of others, without
expecting reciprocation, has obviously been an evolutionary
advantage for the survival of our species, because all people,
irrespective of gender and age, will find themselves at one
time or another in times of need. Attachment theory is keen
on the notions of responsiveness, unconditional love, and
caregiving. The mother, in the mother–infant archetypical
asymmetric relationship can set with her responsive
behavior, the basic precondition for the child to develop as
an adult, a personal sense of autonomy, and the perception
that his or her social world is predictable and trustworthy;
he or she can love others and be loved without fearing
separation, abandonment, and betrayal.
Love can also take on many forms and expressions. It is
important to know what is intended behind each pattern of
expression, love style, type of love, or love story. Although,
romantic love during the peak of passion can take on a nearly
irrational and obsessive character, loving settings allow partners
to express their own perception of their relationship, listen to
other’s and negotiate upon it. Love styles, types, and stories can
significantly contribute to our understanding of how we perceive
the intimate relationship we are in, and what we expect from it
and our partner. Individuals can alter their love stories if they feel
that they have been trapped in the repetition of a destructive
scenario and couples can mutually edit their love story until it
becomes compatible and productive to both.
See also: Cultural Influences on Interpersonal Relationships;
Integrated Attachment Theory; Interpersonal Attraction,
Psychology of; Intimate Partner Abuse, Applied Research on;
Prosocial Behavior and Empathy; Satisfaction and Commitment
in Long-Term Heterosexual Relationships; Social Relationships
in Adulthood.
Bibliography
Aron, A., Westbay, L., 1996. Dimensions of the prototype love. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 70 (3), 535–551.
Bowlby, J., 1979. The Making and Breaking of Affectional Bonds. Tavistock, London.
Berscheid, E., 2006. Searching for the meaning of love. In: Sternberg, R., Weis, K. (Eds.),
The New Psychology of Love. Yale University Press, New Haven & London,
pp. 171–184.
Berscheid, E., Regan, P., 2005. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relationships. Pearson
Education, Upper Saddle River.
Clark, M., Monin, J.K., 2006. Giving and receiving communal responsiveness as love. In:
Sternberg, R., Weis, K. (Eds.), The New Psychology of Love. Yale University Press,
New Haven & London, pp. 200–224.
Fehr, B., 1994. Prototype-based assessment of laypeople’s views of love. Personal
Relationships 1, 309–331.
Fehr, B., 2006. A prototype approach to studying love. In: Sternberg, R., Weis, K. (Eds.),
The New Psychology of Love. Yale University Press, New Haven & London,
pp. 225–248.
Fehr, B., Sprecher, S., 2009. Prototype analysis of the concept of compassionate love.
Personal Relationships 16, 344–364.
Fisher, H., 2006. The drive to love: the neural mechanism for mate selection. In:
Sternberg, R., Weis, K. (Eds.), The New Psychology of Love. Yale University Press,
New Haven & London, pp. 87–115.
Hatfield, E., Rapson, R.L., Martel, L.D., 2007. Passionate love. In:
Kitayama, S., Cohen, D. (Eds.), Handbook of Cultural Psychology. Guilford
Press, New York, pp. 760–779.
Hatfield, E., 1991. Passionate and companionate love. In: Sterberg, R.J., Barnes, M.L.
(Eds.), The Psychology of Love. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp. 191–217.
Hendrick, C., Hendrick, S., 2006. Styles of romantic love. In: Sternberg, R., Weis, K.
(Eds.), The New Psychology of Love. Yale University Press, New Haven & London,
pp. 149–170.
Hendrick, S., Hendrick, C., 2000. Romantic love. In: Hendrick, C., Hendrick, S. (Eds.),
Close Relationships, a Sourcebook. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks,
pp. 203–216.

Kelley, H.H., 1983/2002. Love and commitment. In: Kelley, H.H., Bersceid, E.,
Cristensen, A., Harvey, J.H., Huston, T.L., Levinger, G., McClintock, E., Peplau, L.A.,
Peterson, D.R. (Eds.), Close Relationships, pp. 265–314. Clinton Corners, NY.
Kenrick, D., 2006. A dynamic evolutionary view of love. In: Sternberg, R., Weis, K. (Eds.),
The New Psychology of Love. Yale University Press, New Haven & London,
pp. 15–34.
Laurenceau, J., Feldman, L., Pietromonaco, P., 2004a. Intimacy as an interpersonal
process: the importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner
responsiveness in interpersonal exchange. In: Reis, H., Rusbult, C.E. (Eds.), Close
Relationships. Psychology Press, New York, pp. 199–212.
Laurenceau, J., Rivera, L.M., Schaffer, A.R., Pietromonaco, P.R., 2004b. Intimacy as an
interpersonal process: current status and future directions. In: Masek, D.J., Aron, A.
(Eds.), Handbook of Closeness and Intimacy. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah,
New Jersey, pp. 61–80.
Leckman, J., Hrdy, S.B., Keverne, E.B., Carter, C.S., 2006. A biobehavioral model of
attachment and bonding. In: Sternberg, R., Weis, K. (Eds.), The New Psychology of
Love. Yale University Press, New Haven & London, pp. 116–148.
Neto, F., 2012. Perception of love and sex across the adult life span. Personal Rela-
tionships 29 (6), 760–775.
Prager, K., 2000. Intimacy in personal relationships. In: Hendrick, C., Hendrick, S. (Eds.),
Close Relationships, a Sourcebook. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks,
pp. 229–244.
Prager, K., Roberts, L., 2004. Deep intimate connection: self and intimacy in couple
relationships. In: Masek, D.J., Aron, A. (Eds.), Handbook of Closeness and Intimacy.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 43–60.
Reis, H.T., Clark, M.S., Holmes, J.G., 2004. Perceived partner responsiveness as an
organizing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In: Masek, D.J., Aron, A.
(Eds.), Handbook of Closeness and Intimacy. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah,
NJ, pp. 201–228.
Reis, H.T., Shaver, P., 1988. Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In: Duck, S. (Ed.),
Handbook of Personal Relationships. Wiley, Chichester, pp. 367–389.
Rusbult, C.E., Kumashiro, M., Coolsen, M.K., Kirchner, J.L., 2004. Interdependence,
closeness and relationships. In: Masek, D.J., Aron, A. (Eds.), Handbook of Closeness
and Intimacy. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 137–162.
Love and Intimacy, Psychology of 381
Shaver, P., Hazan, C., Bradshaw, D., 1988. Love as attachment: the integration of three
behavioral systems. In: Sterberg, R.J., Barnes, M.L. (Eds.), The Psychology of Love.
Yale University Press, New Haven, pp. 68–99.
Shaver, P., Mikulincer, M., 2011. An attachment-theory framework for conceptualizing
interpersonal behavior. In: Horowitz, L.M., Strack, S. (Eds.), Handbook of
Interpersonal Psychology. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, pp. 17–36.
Shaver, Ph, Mikulincer, M., 2006. A behavioral systems approach to romantic love
relationships: attachment, caregiving and sex. In: Sternberg, R., Weis, K. (Eds.), The
New Psychology of Love. Yale University Press, New Haven & London, pp. 35–64.
Snyder, M., Tanke, E.D., Berscheid, E., 1977. Social perception and interpersonal
behavior: on the self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 35 (9), 656–666.
Sprecher, S., Fehr, B., 2005. Compassionate love for close others and humanity. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships 22 (5), 629–651.
Sternberg, R., 1995. Love as a story. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 12 (4),
541–546.
Sternberg, R., 2004. A triangular theory of love. In: Reis, H., Rusbult, C.E. (Eds.), Close
Relationships. Psychology Press, New York, pp. 213–228.
Sternberg, R., 2006. A duplex theory of love. In: Sternberg, R., Weis, K. (Eds.), The New
Psychology of Love. Yale University Press, New Haven & London, pp. 184–199.
Relevant Websites
http://www.iarr.org/ – The International Association for Relationship Research.
http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/ – The Science of Relationships Site.
http://www.sexscience.org/ – The Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality.
http://kinseyconfidential.org/ – The blog of the Kinsey Institute on Sex, Love and
Relationships.
http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/ – The Kinsey Institute for Research in Gender, Sex and
Reproduction.