Chart of the Six Love Styles

The theory of six love styles was developed by John A. Lee in his 1973 book Colours of Love. According to
the theory, different individuals approach love relationships in different ways. Lee used the following
Greek words to describe the six different styles:

Eros

(IR-os) Romance Primary style This love style is the one most commonly portrayed in
Hollywood movies. Also known as "love at first sight", it is based on "chemistry" and a strong physical
and/or emotional attraction.

Ludos

(LOO-dos) Conquest Primary style This style is used by those who see love as a game and
want to "win" as many partners as possible. The focus is on having fun in the moment and therefore
relationships of this sort tend to be very short.

Storge

(STORE-gaye) Friendship Primary style This style of love grows slowly out of friendship and is
based more on similar interests and a commitment to one another rather than on passion.

Pragma

(PRAG-ma) Practicality Ludos + Storge This love style is very practical and realistic. People
who prefer this style approach their relationship in a "business-like" fashion and look for partners
with whom they can share common goals.

Mania

(MANE-ee-ah) Obsession Eros + Ludos This style usually flows out of low self esteem and a
need to be loved by one's partner. Lovers of this sort usually become very possessive and jealous.

Agape

(aw-GAW-pay) Selflessness Eros + Storge In this style of love, the individual is willing to sacrifice
anything for their partner. It is based on an unbreakable commitment and an unconditional, selfless
love

Chart of the Six Love Styles

The theory of six love styles was developed by John A. Lee in his 1973 book Colours of Love.
According to the theory, different individuals approach love relationships in different ways. Lee
used the following Greek words to describe the six different styles:

Style: Based on: Combination: Description:

 This love style is the one
most commonly portrayed
in Hollywood movies. Also
Eros known as "love at first
Romance Primary style
sight", it is based on
(IR-os) "chemistry" and a strong
physical and/or emotional
attraction.

This style is used by those

who see love as a game and
want to "win" as many
partners as possible. The
Ludos focus is on having fun in
Conquest Primary style the moment and therefore
(LOO-dos) relationships of this sort
tend to be very short.

This style of love grows

slowly out of friendship and
Storge is based more on similar
interests and a commitment
Friendship Primary style
(STORE- to one another rather than
gaye) on passion.

This love style is very

practical and realistic.
People who prefer this style
Pragma approach their relationship
Practicality Ludos + Storge
in a "business-like" fashion
(PRAG-ma) and look for partners with
whom they can share
common goals.
 This style usually flows out
of low self esteem and a
Mania need to be loved by one's
Obsession Eros + Ludos partner. Lovers of this sort
(MANE-ee- usually become very
ah) possessive and jealous.

Agape
In this style of love, the
Selflessness Eros + Storge
(aw-GAW- individual is willing to
pay) sacrifice anything for their
partner. It is based on an
unbreakable commitment
and an unconditional,
selfless love

Six Types of Love

In a book titled Colors of Love (1973), J. A. Lee defined six varieties of relationship that might be
labeled love.

Eros is romantic, passionate, love–what Tennov labeled limerence. In this type of relationship, love is
life's most important thing. Lee said a search for physical beauty or an ideal type also typifies this type
of love.

Ludus is a game-playing or uncommitted love. Lying is part of the game. A person who pursues ludic
love may have many conquests but remains uncommitted.

Storge (STORE-gay) is a slow developing, friendship-based love. People with this type of love like to
participate in activities together. Lee said that storge results in a long-term relationship in which sex
might not be very intense or passionate.

Pragma is a pragmatic, practical, mutually beneficial relationship. It may be somewhat unromantic

and is sometimes described as "shopping list" love because a partner is selected on the basis of a
series of traits or requirements. Sex is likely to be seen as a technical matter, needed for producing
children, if they are desired.
Mania is an obsessive or possessive love, jealous and extreme. A person in love this way is likely to do
something crazy or silly, such as stalking. The movie Fatal Attraction was about this type.

Agape (a-GOP-aye) is all-giving love, not concerned with the self, only with the partner, or with people
needing compassion. It is said to be relatively rare.

Hendrick and Hendrick (1986) found that Lee's typology was supported by questionnaire research in two
studies with 1,807 and 567 respondents, respectively. "Six love style scales emerged clearly from factor
analysis" in both studies.

What six different types of love did J. A. Lee define?

Hendrick and Hendrick (1986) produced a Love Attitude Scale to detect the six varieties of love through
questionnaire responses. It was used in most of the later research on Lee's love types. Here are some
sample questionnaire items:

Eros: "My partner and I have the right physical chemistry between us." "I feel that my partner and I
were meant for each other." "My partner fits my idea standard of physical beauty/handsomeness."

Ludus: "I have sometimes to keep my partner from finding out about other lovers." "I can get over
love affairs pretty easily and quickly." "I enjoy playing the game of love with my partner and a number
of other partners."

Storge: "Our love is the best kind because it grew out of a long friendship." "Our love is really a
deep friendship, not a mysterious, mystical emotion."

Pragma: "A main consideration in choosing my partner was how he or she would reflect on my
family." "An important factor in choosing my partner was whether he or she would be a good parent."
"One consideration in choosing my partner was how he or she would reflect on my career."

Mania: "When my partner does not pay attention to me, I feel sick all over." "Since I ahve been in
love with my partner, I have had trouble concentrating on anything else." "I cannot relax if I suspect
that my partner is with someone else."

Agape: "I would rather suffer myself than let my partner suffer." "I cannot be happy unless I place
my partner's happiness before my own." "I would endure all things for the sake of my partner."

Lee predicted men would endorse Ludus more frequently. Initially that seemed to be confirmed, as
Hendrick, Slapion-Foote, and Foote (1985) reported that men were more likely to show the ludic type of
love, while women were more likely to be storgic or pragmatic.
However, Woll (1989) found that "the only loving style which showed clear gender differences was Eros,
on which males scored significantly higher than females." Several other studies using the Love Attitude
Scale found no gender differences.

What have researchers found, in studying Lee's six types of love?

Couples happily married for over 30 years commonly identify with the Eros category. This might seem
counter-intuitive if one equates eros with sexual attraction only, or with limerence.

However, the Love Attitude Scale items for Eros emphasize passionate devotion more than sex. Perhaps
it is not surprising that long-married, happy couples would endorse statements like, "We are meant for
each other."

A survey of 500 students in two of my introductory psychology classes showed that the first five types
were familiar to over 80% of the students from their own relationships or people they knew. However,
less than 10% of students knew somebody who expressed agape.

Which type of love was least familiar to students in an introductory psychology class?

Neto et al. (2000) reported cross-cultural research with the Love Attitude Scale. The authors
hypothesized that "factors involving strong personal feelings, such as mania, eros, and agape, would be
largely free of cultural differences" while "factors involving strict social rules... such as pragma, storge,
and ludus, would be dependent on cultural influences."

The authors surveyed 1,157 undergraduates, equally divided between men and women, at universities
in Angola, Brazil, Cape Verde, France, Macao, Mozambique, Portugal, and Switzerland. The results
supported their hypotheses.

Types of love involving strong personal feelings were similar in all cultures; "cross-cultural differences
were very moderate." However, with regard to Pragma and Storge, "cross-cultural differences were
considerable."
Angolans, Brazilians, Cape Verdians, and Mozambicans were more pragmatic than French and Swiss. The
first three of those countries also produced more storgic responses than French or Swiss. "There were
few differences between genders."

Gana, Saada, and Untas (2013) were curious about which love styles might correlate with marital
satisfaction. They studied 146 heterosexual couples. "The results revealed that among the love styles,
only Eros contributed to marital satisfaction for both men and women."

Sharma and Ahuja (2014) found something very similar. They looked at 20 dating couples, 20 couples
married for less than 2 years and childless, and 20 couples married for more than 15 years with children.
"Among the various love styles, only Eros and Agape were significantly correlated with relationship
satisfaction across life stages."

---------------------

References:

Gana, K., Saada, Y., & Untas, A. (2013) Effects of love styles on marital satisfaction in heterosexual
couples: A dyadic approach. Marriage and Family Review, 49, 754-772.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2013.834025

Hendrick, C. & Hendrick, S. (1986) A theory and method of love. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 50, 392-402. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.392

Hendrick, S., Hendrick, C., Slapion-Foote, M. J., & Foote, F. H. (1985) Gender differences in sexual
attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1630-1642.

Lee, J.A. (1973). Colors of Love: An Exploration of the Ways of Loving. Toronto, ON: New Press.

Neto, F., Mullet, E., Deschamps, J. C., Barros, J., Benvindo, R., Camino, L., Falconi, A., Kagibanga, V., &
Machado, M. (2000) Cross-cultural variations in attitudes toward love. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 31, 626-635.

Woll, S. B. (1989) Personality and relationship correlates of loving styles. Journal of Research in
Personality, 23, 480-505.
Rachel Grieve, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, University of Tasmania

Disclosure statement

Rachel Grieve does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or
organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their
academic appointment.

Partners

University of Tasmania

University of Tasmania provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View current jobs from University of Tasmania

Love is a complex and powerful force, one that plays out in a number of emotional, cognitive and social
ways.

When we love a person, we feel emotional arousal in their presence. We will also have a set of thoughts
(or cognitions) about that person, and our previous experiences can shape our ideas about what we
expect in our relationships. For example, if you believe in love at first sight, then you are more likely to
experience it.

But we use love in many different contexts. You might say that you love your partner, or your family, or
your best friend, your job or even your car. Clearly, you’re using the term in different ways that highlight
the various dimensions of love.

The ancient Greeks described several different types of love. Following the Greeks, the sociologist and
activist John Alan Lee suggested that there are six broad styles of love.

It is good to keep in mind that although these love styles can be thought of as “types”, we are not
necessarily locked into only one. We might have a predominant love style, but we will also have some
elements of the other styles.

Similarly, our love style might change over time based on our experiences and interactions with our
partners.
Eros

This style is typically experienced as a romantic, fairytale-type love. Physical beauty is important to this
love style. Attraction is intense and immediate (“head over heels”), and the Eros lover feels an urgent
drive to deepen the relationship emotionally and physically.

Because these individuals love the feeling of being in love, they tend to be serial monogamists, staying in
a relationship as long as it feels fresh and compelling, then moving on so they can experience those
same feelings again with someone new.

Storge

Storgic types tend to be stable and committed in their relationships. They value companionship,
psychological closeness and trust. For these individuals, love relationships can sometimes grow out of
friendships, so that love sneaks up on the pair. This love style is enduring, and these individuals are in it
for the long haul.

Ludus

People with a ludic style view love as a game that they are playing to win. Often this can be a multiplayer
game! Ludic individuals are comfortable with deception and manipulation in their relationships. They
tend to be low on commitment and are often emotionally distant.

Because ludic individuals are more focused on the short term, they tend to place greater importance on
the physical characteristics of their mate than do the other love styles. They are also more likely to
engage in sexual hookups.

Love is eternal, or at least as long as the tree lasts. Scott Meis/Flickr, CC BY-ND

Pragma

Practicality rules for this type. Logic is used to determine compatibility and future prospects. This
doesn’t mean that these individuals use an emotionless, Spock-like approach to their relationships,
rather they a place a high importance on whether a potential mate will be suited to meeting their needs.

These needs might be social or financial. Pragmatists might wonder if their prospective partner would be
accepted by family and friends, or whether they’re good with money. The might also evaluate their
emotional assets; for example, does a would-be partner have the skills to be calm in times of stress?

Mania
This refers to an obsessive love style. These individuals tend to be emotionally dependent and to need
fairly constant reassurance in a relationship. Someone with this love style is likely to experience peaks of
joy and troughs of sorrow, depending on the extent to which their partner can accommodate their
needs.

Because of the possessiveness associated with this style, jealousy can be an issue for these individuals.

Agape

Agapic individuals are giving and caring, and are centred on their partner’s needs. This is largely a
selfless and unconditional love. An agapic partner will love you just as you are. But they will also be
particularly appreciative of acts of care and kindness that they receive back from their partner.

Perhaps because these individuals are so accepting, they tend to have very high levels of relationship
satisfaction.

The truth about love

The kind of love that we feel towards our significant other is likely to change over time. At the start of a
relationship we feel anticipation about seeing our partner and we are excited every time we see them.

These are the heady feelings we associate with being in love, and are very characteristic of romantic
love. But in almost all relationships, these intense emotions are not sustainable, and will fade over
months to a couple of years.

Those passionate feelings will then be replaced by deeper connection as the people in the partnership
grow to truly know each other. This stage is “companionate love” and can last a lifetime (or beyond).

Unfortunately, many people do not realise that the evolution from romantic love to companionate love
is a normal – and indeed healthy – transition. Because the ardent feelings of adoration subside,
sometimes people will think that they have fallen out of love, when in fact the intimacy and closeness of
companionate love can be extremely powerful, if only given the chance.

This is a shame, as these individuals might never experience the life satisfaction that is associated with
companionate love.
Love Styles

The six love styles are composed of the three primary styles and three secondary styles. The primary
styles are eros, storge, and ludus.

Eros is also known as physical love. “Erotic lovers are attracted to people who are physically attracted to
them. They are eager to develop intense, passionate relationships, and they often experience fairly
intense emotional highs and lows. (Guerrero, 2001), ” Erotic lovers also have a need for physical contact
and closeness. This is also the beginning intense stage in a relationship when both people want to spend
all their time together and show a great amount of affection toward one another. Eros are generally
open and honest and are more likely to fall into a more conservative sexual group.

Storge can be considered companionate love. “Storgic lovers have relationships based on friendship,
shared values and goals, and compatibility. Physical attraction is not as important as security,
companionship, task sharing, and joint activities (Guerrero, 2001).” Storgic lovers like what’s
comfortable in a relationship. This kind of love can also be characterized with platonic friendships and
family relationships. Storgic lovers fall in love with their friends and don’t necessarily know when the
line blurred into love.

Ludus is the game-playing type of love. “Ludic lovers see relationships as fun, playful, and casual; they
view relationships as games to be played. They avoid commitment and prefer to play the field rather
than settle down with one person (Guerrero, 2001, pg. 145).” They are also more likely to endorse
casual sex and more liberal sexual attitudes in general. They can also be distant in a relationship and
want to keep the other person guessing about their commitment level.

The secondary love styles are agape, pragma, and mania and are composed of combinations of the
primary styles.

Agape is also known as selfless love. Agape is a combination of eros and storge (Arnold, 1996). “The
agapic lover is more focused on giving rather than receiving. These lovers are motivated by an intense
concern for their partner’s well-being. They are willing to make sacrifices for their partner, even at the
expense of their own needs and desires (Guerrero, 2001, pg.146).” These individuals tend to be very
committed and conservative in their values. They will also be more sexually conservative.

Pragma is also known as practical love. Pragma is a combination of storge and ludus (Arnold, 1996).
“Pragmatic lovers search for a person who fits a particular image in terms of vital statistics, such as age,
height, religion, and occupation, as well as preferred characteristics, such as being a loyal partner or the
potential of being a good parent (Guerrero, 2001, pg.147).” This is like a shopping list kind of love. It is
very careful and deliberate. This type of person will also not likely endorse casual sex.

Mania or what is also known as possessive love. Mania is a combination of ludus and eros (Arnold,
1996). “Manic lovers are demanding, dependent, and possessive. They often feel a strong need to be in
control and to know everything the partner is doing (Guerrero, 2001, pg. 145).” A manic lover will
strongly disapprove of going outside of the relationship for sex. This person wants total attention and
devotion from the partner.

Final analysis

These studies are all very subjective. They rely on the subjects own definition of how they interpret the
Hendrick love scale. Many of the studies didn’t consider age, ethnicity, or religious background which
could have an impact on love styles. Culture is known to have a great impact on social behavior and
must be factored in. These studies also only consider heterosexual couples. This assumes that
homosexual relationships are the same. Most of this data is also collected from college-age students.
Adults of this age may be experimenting with their relationships and may not have an actual love style
yet. There is also little experience with relationships for perspective and objectivity. A broader sample of
all ages, professions, and sexual orientation would make for a better data set.

In determining relational and sexual satisfaction, all six styles must be present and that certain aspects
of communication were also required. “Passion and friendship/companionship are not consecutive in a
romantic relationship but rather are concurrent. Both play a part in relationship initiation and
development as well as in relationship maintenance (Hendrick, 2000).”

In conclusion, there is no right or wrong way to love, but only a combination of extremes that lead most
people somewhere in the middle with one or two more dominant styles. These are also not the only
factors in what determines a healthy and satisfying relationship. It’s the whole package, which
unfortunately cannot be accurately studied because of the unimaginable variables that would be
involved.

References

Lacey, Rachel Saul., Reifman Alan, Scott., Jean Pearson, Harris, Steven M., Fitzpatrick, Jacki. Sexual-Moral
Attitudes, Love Styles, and Mate Selection. Journal of Sex Research, 2004, Vol. 41, Issue 2, p.121.

Arnold, Margery E., Thompson, Bruce. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 1996, Vol. 11, Issue 3.
Montgomery, Marilyn J., Sorell, Gwendolyn T., Differences in Love Attitudes Across Family Life Stages.
Journal of Family Relations, 1997, Vol. 46, Issue 1.

Frey, Kurt. Are love Styles Related to Sexual Styles? Journal of Sex Research, 1998.

Ryckman, Richard M., Thornton, Bill., Gold, Joel A., Burckle, Michelle A. Romantic Relationships of
Hypercompetitive Individuals, Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 2002, Vol. 21, No. 5.

Waller, Niels G., Shaver, Phillip R. The Importance of Nongenetic Influences on Romantic Love Styles: A
Twin-Family Study, 1994, American Psychological Society, Vol. 5, No. 5.

Hendrick, Clyde., Hendrick, Susan S., Close Relationships: A Sourcebook, 2000, Sage Publications Inc.

Wood, Julia T., Interpersonal Communications: Everyday Encounters, 2002, Wadsworth Publishing, Ed.
4.

Leak, Gary K., Louis, Gardner E. Sexual Attitudes, Love Attitudes, and Social Interest, 1990, Individual
Psychology, Vol. 46. No. 1.

Guerrero, Laura K., Andersen, Peter A., Afifi, Walid A. Close Encounters: Communicating In
Relationships, 2001, McGraw Hill.

Johnson, Dr. Amy, Advanced Interpersonal Notes, 9/29/2004.

Hahn, Jennifer., Blass, Thomas., Dating Partner Preferences: A Function of Similarity of love Styles,
Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 1997, Vol. 12, Issue 3.

Primary types of love

Eros

Main article: Eros (concept)

Eros derived from the Greek term meaning erotic or passionate. Lee describes eros as a passionate
physical and emotional love of wanting to satisfy, create sexual contentment, security and aesthetic
enjoyment for each other, it also includes creating sexual security for the other by striving to forsake
options of sharing one's intimate and sexual self with outsiders.[2] It is a highly sensual, intense,
passionate style of love. Erotic lovers choose their lovers by intuition or "chemistry." They are more
likely to say they fell in love at first sight than those of other love styles.

Erotic lovers view marriage as an extended honeymoon, and sex as the ultimate aesthetic experience.
They tend to address their lovers with pet names, such as "sweetie" or "sexy". An erotic lover can be
perceived as a "hopeless romantic". The erotic lover wants to share everything with and know
everything about their loved one, and often thinks of their partner in an idealized manner. The erotic
lover's reaction to criticism from their partner is one of hurt and intense pain. The erotic lover's reaction
to separation from the partner is agony and despair. Those of other love styles may see erotic lovers as
unrealistic, or trapped in a fantasy.

The advantage of erotic love, is that the hormones and emotions cause lovers to bond with each other,
and feelings of lust and feelings of love alternatively reinforce each other. It is very relaxing to the
person doing it. It affords a sense of security to both partners who recognize and see sexual
complementation in each other and a sense of life's purpose. Sexual contentment lies at the bottom of
Maslow's hierarchy of needs along with hunger and shelter. It requires both partners to accord validity
to each other's sexual feelings, work on sustaining interest and maintain the sexual health of the
relationship. A disadvantage is the possibility of the decay in attraction, and the danger of living in a
fantasy world. In its extreme, eros can resemble naïveté. A partner not as sexually inclined may also feel
one's physical body being taken for granted and may perceive the eros lover as looking for carnal
gratification.

Examples of eros may be seen in movies including The Blue Lagoon, Return to the Blue Lagoon, Pretty
Woman, Working Girl, and Girl with a Pearl Earring.

Lee's recognizable traits:

Feels strong physical and emotional connection through the relationship

Begins with a partner who is a stranger and evokes immediate excitement

May be exclusive but not possessive

Seeks early sexual adventure, variety and technique

Is ready for love and its risks[3]

Ludus

Ludus, meaning "game" in Latin, is used by those who see love as a desiring to want to have fun with
each other, to do activities indoor and outdoor, tease, indulge, and play harmless pranks on each other.
The acquisition of love and attention itself may be part of the game.[4]

Ludic lovers want to have as much fun as possible. When they are not seeking a stable relationship, they
rarely or never become overly involved with one partner and often can have more than one partner at a
time. They don't reveal their true thoughts and feelings to their partner, especially if they think they can
gain some kind of advantage over their partner. The expectation may also be that the partner is also
similarly minded. If a relationship materializes it would be about having fun and indulging in activities
together.

Storge

Main article: Storge

Storge grows slowly out of friendship and is based more on similar interests and a commitment to one
another rather than on passion.

Storge is familial love. There is a love between siblings, spouses, cousins, parents and children. Storge
necessitates certain familial loyalties, responsibilities, duties and entitlements. The dwelling is to be
sanctuary for its members and all members of a family are to pull through together in difficult times.
Except for marriage, all other relationships have existed often by blood for as long as the individuals
have known each other. In marriage, a couple, who formerly did not accord each other this love,
promise to extend and build this love and form a new bond of kinship. Family members hold each other
in good esteem to the outside world. Insults undermine the connected family reputations. In many
judicial systems a family member cannot be asked to testify in court against a member of one's
immediate family for a crime external to family. Storgic love often develops gradually out of friendship,
or out of extended duration of cohabitation[citation needed]. The friendship in some cases can endure
beyond the breakup of the relationship.

Examples of storge can be seen in movies including Love & Basketball, When Harry Met Sally, and Zack
and Miri Make a Porno.

Lee's recognizable traits:

Is not looking for love but is ready if encountered

Quietly possessive but not overly jealous

Believes love comes from friendship but not a goal of life

Only has sexual desires after commitment is declared

Secondary types of love

The three secondary types of love are mania, agape and pragma.

Mania

Mania coming from the term manic 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. This type of love leads
a partner into a type of madness and obsessiveness. It is represented by the color purple, as it is a mix
between ludus and eros.

Manic lovers speak of their partners in possessives and superlatives, and feel they "need" their partners.
Love is a means of rescue, or a reinforcement of value. Manic lovers value finding a partner through
chance without prior knowledge of financial, educational, or personality dispositions. Insufficient
expression of the love of mania by one's partner can cause one to perceive the partner as aloof,
materialistic and detached. In excess, mania becomes obsession or codependency and could come
about as being very possessive and jealous. One example from real life can be found in the unfortunate
John Hinckley, Jr., a mentally disturbed individual who attempted to assassinate US President Ronald
Reagan, due to a misperception that this would prompt the actress Jodie Foster to finally reciprocate his
obsessive love. Hinckley's continuing behavior to date would seem to show that he has not been able to
transcend his obsession, and this would again seem to be consistent with a deviant form of manic love.
[citation needed]

Extreme examples of mania can be seen in movies including Endless Love, Fatal Attraction, Misery, Play
Misty for Me, Swimfan, and Taxi Driver.

Lee's recognizable traits:

Anxious about falling in love and has expectations of pain

Quickly becomes overwhelmed by thoughts of their partner

Forces partner into showing affection and emotion

Is easily frustrated and does not enjoy sexual intimacy

Is very possessive and jealous

Agape

Main article: Agape

Agape, the purest form of love, derives its definition of love from being altruistic towards 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,
that is all giving. It is an undying love that is full of compassion and selflessness. Agape love is often
referenced with religious meaning and is signified by the color orange.

Agapic lovers view their partners as blessings and wish to take care of them. The agapic lover gets more
pleasure from giving in a relationship than from receiving. They will remain faithful to their partners to
avoid causing them pain and often wait patiently for their partners after a break-up. Agape requires one
to be forgiving, patient, understanding, loyal, and willing to make sacrifices for their partner. An agapic
lover believes that this love is unconditional, though lovers taking an agapic stance to relationships risk
suffering from inattention to their own needs. The advantage of agapic love is its generosity. A
disadvantage is that it can induce feelings of guilt or incompetence in a partner. There is the potential to
be taken advantage of. In its deviant form, agape can become Martyrdom. Martyrdom for principle may
be acceptable; martyrdom to maintain a relationship is considered psychologically unhealthy.

Examples of agape can be found in books and movies including The Gift of the Magi by O. Henry,
Penelope in Odyssey, The Mission, Somewhere in Time, Titanic, Untamed Heart, Forrest Gump, and The
Bible.

Lee's recognizable traits:

Attracted to several types of people

Meets people easily so most likely will begin with a stranger

Feels concern and care for each partner they have

Is neither jealous nor obsessive

Enjoys sex and is willing to improve it[5]

Pragma

Lee defines pragma as the most practical type of love, not necessarily derived out of true romantic love.
Rather, pragma is a convenient type of love.

Pragmatic lovers have a notion of being of service which they perceive to be rational and realistic. While
they may be sincere about being useful themselves it also translates to having expectations of a partner
and of the relationship. They tend to select and reject partners based on what they perceive as
desirable, compatible traits. Pragmatic lovers want to find value in their partners, and ultimately want to
work with their partner to reach a common goal. The practicality and realism of pragmatic love often
aides longevity of the relationship, as long as common goals and values remain shared for the duration.
Excessive thinking along these lines causes a relationship to be seen for its utility or as a trade or
exchange. The attitude can become disdainful and toxic if one sees the other as a burden. Emphasis
switches to earning, affordability, child care or home service. Pragmatic love as a form of cooperation or
symbiosis should not be considered as a negative type of attitude. In a collectivist culture where
arranged marriage is practiced, pragmatic love is very common at the time of mate selection (Chaudhuri,
2004). Values are likely to be shared by a couple in developing countries, where survival and wealth
building are often prioritized over other life pursuits.

Examples of pragma can be found in books, movies, and TV including Ordinary People, Pride and
Prejudice (Charlotte), and House of Cards (Frank and Claire Underwood). Political marriages are often a
real-life example of pragma-style lovers.

Lee's recognizable traits:

Certain of their preferable "types"

Begins a relationship with an already familiar person

Believes a loving relationship is desirable for a happy life

Expects reciprocation of feelings

Believes sexual compatibility can be worked out[3]

Tertiary types of love

Lee defines nine types of tertiary types of love that are combinations of the previous six types of love.
Each combination includes one primary and one secondary.

Maniac eros

Maniac ludus

Maniac storge

Agapic eros

Agapic ludus
 Agapic storge

Pragmatic eros

Pragmatic ludus

Pragmatic storge

Though Lee names each of the tertiary types of love, he never found enough evidence to distinguish
them fully.[6]

Measurement

Clyde Hendrick and Susan Hendrick of Texas Tech University expanded on this theory in the mid-1980s
with their extensive research on what they called "love styles". Their study found that male students
tend to be more ludic, whereas female students tend to be storgic and pragmatic.[7] Whilst the ludic
love style may predominate in men under age thirty, studies on more mature men have shown that the
majority of them do indeed mature into desiring monogamy, marriage and providing for their family by
age thirty.[8][9]

Hendrick and Hendrick (1986) developed a self-report questionnaire measure of Lee's love styles, known
as the Love Attitudes Scale (LAS).[10] A shortened version of the LAS, presumably for researchers trying
to keep their surveys as concise as possible, was later published,[11] and other variations appear to have
been used by some researchers. Respondents indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with
the LAS items, examples of which include "My partner and I have the right physical 'chemistry'" (eros)
and "Our love is the best kind because it grew out of a long friendship" (storge). Depending on the
version of the LAS one administers, there are from 3–7 items for each of the six styles described above.

A 2002 article illustrated the use of the LAS.[clarification needed][12]

Biological view

In 2007, researchers from the University of Pavia led by Dr Enzo Emanuele provided evidence of a
genetic basis for individual variations in Lee's love styles, with eros being linked to the dopamine system
and mania to the serotonin system.[13]

In a genetic study of 350 lovers, the eros style was found to be present more often in those bearing the
TaqI A1 allele of the DRD2 3' UTR sequence and the overlapping ANKK1 exon 8. This allele has been
proposed to influence a wide range of behaviors, favoring obesity and alcoholism but opposing
neuroticism-anxiety and juvenile delinquency.[14] This genetic variation has been hypothesized to cause
a reduced amount of pleasure to be obtained from a given action, causing people to indulge more
frequently.[15]
See also

Diotima of Mantinea

The Four Loves by C. S. Lewis

Greek love

References

Lee, John A (1976). Lovestyles. Abacus.

Lee, John A. Colours of Life: An Exploration of the Ways of Loving. new press. p. 15.

Sternberg, Robert. The Psychology of Love. Yale University Press. p. 51.

Lee, John A. Colours of Life: An Exploration of the Ways of Loving. p. 16.

Sternberg, Robert. The Psychology of Love. Yale University Press. p. 48.

Lee, John A. Colours of Life: An Exploration of the Ways of Loving. new press. p. 156.

"Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-12-19. Retrieved 2014-12-19.

Winking, Jeffrey; Kaplan, Hillard; Gurven, Michael; Rucas, Stacey (7 July 2007). "Why do men marry and
why do they stray?". Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences. 274 (1618):
1643–1649. doi:10.1098/rspb.2006.0437. PMC 2169272. PMID 17456459 – via
rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org.

Walum, Hasse; Westberg, Lars; Henningsson, Susanne; Neiderhiser, Jenae M.; Reiss, David; Igl, Wilmar;
Ganiban, Jody M.; Spotts, Erica L.; Pedersen, Nancy L.; Eriksson, Elias; Lichtenstein, Paul (16 September
2008). "Genetic variation in the vasopressin receptor 1a gene (AVPR1A) associates with pair-bonding
behavior in humans". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 105 (37): 14153–14156.
doi:10.1073/pnas.0803081105. PMC 2533683. PMID 18765804 – via www.pnas.org.

Hendrick C, Hendrick SS (Feb 1986). "A theory and method of love". Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 50 (2): 392–402. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.392.

Hendrick C, Hendrick SS, Dicke A (1998). "The Love Attitudes Scale: Short form". J Pers Soc Psychol. 15
(2): 147–59. doi:10.1177/0265407598152001.

Fricker J, Moore S (2002). "Relationship Satisfaction: The role of Love Styles and Attachment Styles".
Current Research in Social Psychology. 7 (11).

Emanuele E, Brondino N, Pesenti S, Re S, Geroldi D (Dec 2007). "Genetic loading on human loving
styles". Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 28 (6): 815–21. PMID 18063936.

"NCBI Gene summary for DRD2 (interim reference)".

"Milkshake study reveals brain's role in obesity". Reuters. 16 October 2008.

http://www.psychologycharts.com/six-love-styles.html

http://www.intropsych.com/ch16_sfl/six_types_of_love.html

http://www.rv337.com/vimages/shared/vnews/stories/4b55e440aa0d7/John%20Lee's%20Love
%20Theory.pdf

http://courses.washington.edu/psii101/geninfo/lovetest.pdf