The triangular theory of love | maudlin tales

There are days when I regret my Arts & Humanities major. Today was one of those days.

Don?t get me wrong?I love learning about literature, linguistics, and film. I?ve always been interested in language, in everything you can do and achieve with it. The number of reviews on this blog alone testifies of how much I enjoy looking at movies with a critical eye.
This semester, however, I?m taking Social Psychology, and it?s without a doubt one of my interesting courses so far. Not because it teaches me much surprising information?a lot of it couldn?t make more sense.

My reaction when I read in my Social Psychology textbook that people who break up a relationship generally experience less emotional stress afterwards than the people who get dumped.

No, the reason why I like Psychology so much is because it gives me the official terms for everything we human beings think and do, and clear theories about the underlying reasons thereof. Maybe that?s the linguist in me, coveting all the nice little words and organizing those in pretty labeled boxes in my brain.

Today I learned about Sternberg?s triactic/triangular theory of love (not to be confused with a love triangle; yes, Wikipedia, thank you for your input). According to this theory, the relationships we have with other people depend on three factors: passion, intimacy, and commitment.

• Passion: physical attraction
• Intimacy: emotional/mental/intellectual closeness
• Commitment: your intention for the relationship to last, yes or no

Depending on which and how many of these factors are relevant, you can map out the type of relationship you?re in. There are eight different types, seven of which are in the following graph:

The eight type, nonlove, occurs when all factors are absent. That?s the type of relationship you have with vague acquaintances?the people in your class you don?t know the name of even though they?ve been in your class for two months now, the janitor of your apartment building, etc. You are not emotionally nor physically close to them, and you don?t really care whether they stay in your life or not.

Graphs are prettier, but tables are easier to read. Also, more classy.

Some of these are friendship only, e.g. liking (intimacy) or companionate love (intimacy + commitment). Our professor advised us not to phone home and tell our parents, ?I learned in Social Psychology today that you are probably having an empty love (commitment only) type of relationship.?

We only just met and we don't know anything about each other, but I'll never let you go ever again. You are my life now. Etc.

Note the difference between infatuation (passion only) and fatuous love (passion + commitment). Infatuation is a perfect basis for a one-night stand. Fatuous love is the Romeo and Juliet kind of relationship. They meet and fall brainlessly in love with each other without ever establishing a serious emotional connection. They barely know each other, but would gladly?and ultimately will?die for each other.
(Twilight readers, no matter what your teenage heart tells you, this type of relationship is NOT ADVISABLE. Pick one of the healthier ones instead.)

One last interesting finding: often, people in a consummate (intimacy + passion + commitment) relationship wouldn?t mind a romantic (intimacy + passion) relationship on the side.

Does this make you want to map out all your relationships? Do you think you?re doing well, interpersonally speaking?

Like this:

One blogger likes this post.

bruno mars bonnie raitt best new artist 2012 grammys foo fighters nikki minaj grammys