LOVE IN MARITAL AND FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS:

PERSONALITY SCHEMAS AND INTERACTIONAL PROCESSES

Vincent Jeffries
California State University, Northridge
Both traditional ideas about the nature of love and
contemporary social science formulations indicate that love can
be regarded as a duality. For example, in his extensive analysis
of the history of ideas about love from early philosophical
thought to the present, Singer (1984a, 1984b, 1987) maintains
views of love center around two basic forms: appraisal and
bestowal. Appraisal derives from self-gratification and is
utilitarian, bestowal derives from the capacity to love and
centers on the welfare of the other.
In interpersonal relations love is attachment to another
person. Its dualistic nature is examined in this article in
terms of attraction and virtue. Questionnaire responses from two
separate samples are analyzed. The data provide for a comparison
of marital love and familial love involving young adults and
their parents. Aspects of both the schematic structure and the
interactional dynamics of love are analyzed.
NATURE OF LOVE
Attraction and Virtue
Personal needs and desires are the motivating force behind
attractive love. Its continuance ultimately depends on their
satisfaction. Gratification gives impetus to positive attitudes

toward the other (Jeffries 2002).

The components of attractive love were formulated primarily
from the writings of Turner (1970:216-245). The five components
of love as attraction are: (1) admiration, a positive evaluation
of the other person; (2) companionship, enjoyment of the others
company; (3) trust, the belief that one can rely on the other;
(4) intimacy, sharing of the private and personal; (5) emotional
closeness, a positive emotional bonding.
The concept of virtue is the central idea in a tradition of
thought that ranges from classical Greece to the contemporary
era (MacIntyre 1984; Pieper 1966). Since the 1990's a
considerable body of theoretical and research literature
focusing on the virtues has developed within the positive
psychology movement (Peterson and Seligman 2004). Virtue is
viewed as the dimension of love that is directed toward
benefitting the other. The virtues can be viewed as the
components of what has traditionally been called benevolent
love, and is often currently called altruistic love (Jeffries
1998).

The essence of this love and its motivational source is

the commitment to do good to the other in some manner and to

express this through behavior (Aristotle 1941:1058-1102; Aquinas
1981:1263).
Five virtues can be derived from Aquinas's (1981:817-894,
1263-1879) scheme of the virtues. They are: (1) temperance,
moderation and discipline of the appetites and passions; (2)

fortitude, the willingness to undergo hardships and dangers for

the welfare of another; (3) justice, giving what is due to
another in terms of fairness; (4) charity, benefitting another
as in helping, forgiving, meeting their needs; (5) prudence, the
use of reason in seeking to know what is good, and in choosing
the appropriate means to realize it.
Reality as Duality
The receiving and giving dimensions of love, conceptualized
as attraction and virtue, are analytically separable. However,
the love of an individual for another is a duality in which both
forms of love are present (Rubin 1973:214; Singer 1987:389-406).
The relative importance and frequency of occurance of these
dimensions of love can vary, in regard to both basic
dispositions of personality and the expression of love by the
individual in different social situations. Typically, both are
present to some degree, and influence each other.
At another level of analysis, both marriage and family life
are a sequence of interactions (Turner 1970). The dimensions of
love can vary in their manifestations and importance from one
episode of interaction to another, and in general in a given
interpersonal relationship.
METHODOLOGY
Samples
Data from two samples are analyzed in the study. These are
a sample of married individuals, called the "marriage" sample,

and a sample of university students, called the "family" sample.

Data for the marriage sample consists of 103 individuals,
including 47 married couples. All had been married 25 years or
more. Fifty-one percent are male, 49 percent female. The mean
age is 64, the median 63, the mode 60, with a range of 44 to 90.
The sample was selected from individuals who are religiously
active. Subjects were affiliated with six Protestant Christian
denominations, two branches of Judaism, and the Roman Catholic
church.
Data for the family

sample was collected from 731 students

in 18 different introductory sociology courses at a large urban

general purpose university. Enrollment includes students of all
majors, and does not contain a disproportionate number of
sociology majors. Sixty percent of the sample are females, 40
percent males. Seventy-eight percent are under age 21, 92
percent under age 25. Mean age is 20.2, median and mode are both
19.
Measures
For both the marriage and family samples, love was measured
using a previously validated scale of attraction and virtue
(Jeffries 1993). Self-reported love and perceived love of the
other were measured in both samples. To do this the following
probe was repeated for both self-reported and perceived love: In
your relationship with your (spouse) (female parent) (male
parent), when the opportunity occurred to do so, how often did

you (they) do each of the following. A five point numbered scale

ranging from "Never" to "Always" was provided for responses to
items following the probe. Items measuring self-reported and
perceived love are the same, with appropriate changes in
pronouns.
Sample items measuring attraction are: admiration: Admired
them (you); companionship: Liked being with them (you); trust:
Trusted them (you); intimacy: Confided in them (you); emotional
closeness: Felt close to them (you) emotionally. Sample items
measurung virtue are: temperance: Practiced self-discipline for
the good of your (their) relationship with them (you);
fortitude: Been ready to endure hardships for their (your)
happiness; justice: Did your (their) best to fulfill your
(their) responsibilities to them (you); charity: Been helpful to
them (you); prudence: Thought over how you (they) could
contribute to their (your) well-being.
In the marriage sample an abbreviated scale of the above
ten items was used. All twenty items in the scale (Jeffries
1993) were used in the family sample. In the marriage sample
responses to the attraction and virtue measures were gathered
for the early, middle, and recent years of marriage. Summary
scores for the full span of the marriage were constructed from
this source. To facilitate comparison of marital and family love
the same form of summary scores was used for the data from the
family sample. In this instance scores were computed based on

both items for each of the five components of attraction and the
five virtues.

Reliability measured by alpha for the marriage

sample ranges from .81 to .93, and for the family sample from .
87 to .94.
THE STRUCTURE OF LOVE: SCHEMAS AND SUBSCHEMAS
Cognitive theory posits the existence of inner psychic
structures that are basic elements in the mental life of every
individual (Brewer and Nakamura 1984; Markus and Zajonc
1985:142-174; Moskowitz 2005:153-192; Rumelhart 1984). Most
commonly called schemas, there are countless such structures
that relate to an infinite number of aspects of daily life and
experience. Schemas are stored in memory and exist at both
unconscious and conscious levels. They can be activated by both
internal psychic sources and by social situations.
Schemas are the internal psychic basis for understanding
and

evaluating objects, ideas, events, persons, and social

situations. Schemas do not exist in isolation. Rather they are

related in varying degrees of affinity to other schemas. Thus
gender and age schemas are distinct, but frequently are
interrelated in relation to others. In other instances schemas
exist in a much closer relationship in which more specific
schemas are embedded within more abstract schemas in a
hierarchial arrangement of close interdependence. Holding this
type of schematic integration together in a psychic system is a
common meaning that is formulated at different levels of

abstraction.
This model of hierarchial embeddeness appears to
characterize the love schema. The foundation of this schema is a
general notion of love that entails a conception of how one
relates to another in an interpersonal relationship that
includes attachment. Embedded within this are the two schema of
attraction and virtue, entailing need fulfillment and
benefitting another, respectively. The components of attraction
and the virtues are specifications of these more generalized
ideas. If this is the case, it should be reflected in the data.
THE DYNAMICS OF LOVE: SENTIMENTS, ATTITUDES, AND INTERACTION
The schematic structures of love are activated in the
context of interaction with other individuals. At this level of
specificity the abstract love schemas and their subschemas are
particularized in relation to attitudes and behavior toward
given individuals. At this point a different cognitive
structure, that of the sentiment, becomes pivotal in the
manifestation of the love schemas in attitudes and behavior.
Sentiments can be considered the primary operational
cognitive structure in interaction in interpersonal
relationships (Shibutani 1961:322-366; Turner 1970:224-228). A
sentiment is defined as a relatively organized structure of
attitudes toward a given person (Shibutani 1961:332). Sentiments
involve perception, evaluation, emotions, and a pattern of
response.

Several cognitive structures besides the love schemas are

likely to be implicated in the formulation and expression of
sentiments of love. Each are unique to a given interpersonal
relationship. Three important schemas are the emotions
associated with the relationship, the history of the
relationship as it is stored in memory, and a personification of
the other. This later schema is the meaning each party gives to
the other based on their imputed motives and characteristics
(Shibutani 1961:111).

The particularized love sentiment

toward another person is also influenced by what Moskowitz

(2005:161-162) calls role and relational schemas. Both represent
the individuals internal formulation of norms and behavioral
expectations that are derived from culture. These schemas find
their source in commonly expected attitudes and ways of behaving
relative to positions and to social relationships, respectively.
In the case of love, gender and age roles and parent-child and
spousal relational schemas are relevant. Each of these schemas
are distinct in their basic cognitive domain but are likely to
be modified and to some degree integrated with the sentiment of
love for a particular person.
These factors shape both the input to, and the output from,
the love schema as its content is manifested in the
consciousness of the individual in the process of interaction.
For example, an individuals love for his or her mother, father,
and spouse is for a specific person and is always partially

shaped by the love schemas and by other factors, including those

previously considered. For each of these interpersonal
relationships there is a unique configuration of these elements
that is the basis of the manner and extent of the expression of
love in attitudes and behavior toward that person. Emotions,
history, and personifications are likely to contribute to the
uniqueness of a given configuration of love, while role and
relational schemas are likely to contribute to some degree of
homogenity within similar positions and relationships.
Social cognition theory (Markus and Zajonic 1985; Ostrom
1984) provides a context for examining the influence of
sentiments and their expression in behavior in interpersonal
relationships. From this theoretical perspective the individual
is regarded as a purposive organism with the capacity to act as
a causal agent. Both internal cognitive structures and the
behavior of the other form the basis of imputing meaning. This
meaning is centrally implicated in interpreting stimuli and
formulating responses. Social episodes are thus appraised and
responded to in an ongoing process of interaction. Responses to
the other are influenced by the continually evolving history of
the relationship. This emphasis on the importance of individual
choice, a context of meaning, and stimuli deriving from the
behavior of the other in ongoing interaction is also
characteristic of symbolic interactionist theory (Shibutani
1961; Stryker and Statham 1985).

Turner (1970) has applied this interactionist perspective

to marital and family relationships. Emphasizing a process
approach, marital and family life are viewed as a sequence of
episodes of interaction. Each episode is influenced by previous
ones, then exerts its own influence on future ones. The effect
of the stimuli provided by one party is strongly influenced by
how the other party interprets it. In this interpersonal dynamic
there is always some leeway for purposive behavior on the part
of the individuals involved. The choice of behavior that is made
influences the future process of interaction in the
relationship.

The meaning individuals ascribe to

situations is a prime determinant of how they will interpret and

react to them (Stryker and Statham 1985:322-323; Thomas 1966).
In long term relationships relatively stable meanings and
corresponding behaviors regarding the manner and degree of the
expression of love between the parties typically evolve out of
interaction. Under these conditions the manifestation of given
components of love can often become habitual and generally
subconscious.
Sentiments that derive from the love schemas become an
important component of this process of interaction between
parties in marital and in family relationships. Evidence for
this is provided by the strong positive correlations between
love and relationship quality found among spouses (Jeffries
2006) and in young adult-parental relationships (Jeffries 1993).

10

In this interactional dynamic the perceived love of the other,

be they spouse or parent, can be regarded as influencing the
self-reported love of the individual. How that individual
responds will in turn influence the others perception of the
love of him or her for them.
RESULTS
Schemas and Subschemas
The two dimensions of love, attraction and virtue, are
highly correlated, thus indicating integration based on a
generalized idea of the meaning of the nature of love as an
attachment to another person. For the marriage sample bivariate
correlations (r) for self-reported virtue and attraction are .
60, for perceived virtue and attraction .77. For the family
sample, the correlations between virtue and attraction are .67
and .78 for self-reported and perceived love, rerspectively, for
the female parent. These figures are .73 and .77 for love for
the male parent.
Whether there is a duality in the cognitive structure of
love can most appropriately be examined with factor analysis.
Table 1 presents factor solutions for both self-reported and
perceived love for the married sample. A similar analysis for
young adults and their parents is presented in Table 2 for the
female parent, and Table 3 for the male parent.
A varimax rotation with a criterion of two factors shows
that the scores used as variables are grouped into attraction

11

and virtue factors appropriately in all three relationships. If

these results are viewed in terms of confirmatory factor
analysis, the results support the postulated two dimensional
structure of love. KMO and Bartlett tests are satisfactory.
Eigenvalues and explained variance after rotation show that both
factors are strong and together explain between 62 and 75
percent of the variance. These results are consistent with a
previous validation study for the attraction-virtue measure of
love (Jeffries 1993). This study adds to these findings by
showing that the items factor according to their
conceptualization and in a similar manner in two different types
of relationship, marriage and family.
From the perspective of understanding the nature of love,
the results indicate that attraction and virtue are indeed
separate but related dimensions of love in marriage and in young
adult-parent relationships with both female and male parents.
The two dimension structure of love is thus basically similar in
these three relationships. A second similarity is that in all
three relationships attraction explains the most variance in the
case of self-reported love, while virtue is predominant for
perceived love. Perhaps individuals tend to respond to others
primarily in terms of the gratification they consider they
recieve from the relationship, but see the love of the other
more in terms of its giving and benefitting aspects.
The ranking of the components of attraction and virtue is

12

quite similar when data for female and male parents presented in
Tables 2 and 3 are compared. In contrast, Table 1 shows that the
ranking of the components is noticeably different in the case of
the marriage sample. This probably indicates differences in the
nature of love and in role expectations in marriage compared to
family relationships.
If the family sample is divided into male and female
subjects, the solutions definitively separate attraction and
virtue in all instances when two factors are specified as the
criterion. The results overall suggest that the basic schematic
structure of virtue and attraction appears to transcend age,
gender, and relational schema in shaping the structure of love.
Discussion. In forming a perspective regarding the nature
and arrangement of cognitive structures pertaining to love the
assumption of hierarchial integration from general to specific
can interpret the findings. The results suggest that the love
schema as a psychic structure consists of a generalized
conception of what love means. The nature of the meaning of love
is delineated in the two major subschemas of attraction and
virtue. Embedded within each of these general subschemas of
self-gratification and benefitting the other are the more
specific subschemas of the ways in which a given dimension of
love can be manifested. These are the components of attraction
and the individual virtues, respectively.
Sentiments, Attitudes, and Interaction

13

To examine the interactional aspect of love, self-reported

and perceived love can be thought of as part of a symmetrical
causal relation. Given the nature of the data, perceived love
can be viewed as the independent variable and self-reported love
as the dependent variable. The basic research question in this
design is thus how perception of the others love influences the
attitudes and behavior reported by subjects.
Regression provides the most appropriate tool for this
analysis. The stepwise multiple regression of self-reported love
on perceived love is presented in Tables 4 and 5. Explained
variance (R2), its change, and its significance are reported, as
are partial correlations and beta weights between the
independent and dependent variables. Table 5 indicates that the
manifestation of virtuous love is moderately influenced by
perceived love, with R2's ranging from .37 to .45. For the
manifestatioin of love for spouses and for male parents, both
dimensions of love make independent contributions, as indicated
by R2 change, partial correlations, and beta weights. For love
for female parents, these same statistics indicate that
perceived attraction accounts for almost all of the variance in
self-reported virtue. Perceived attraction also explains more
among the married though virtue has a definite independent
effect. In contrast, perceived virtue explains the most variance
for self-reported virtue toward the male parent, though
perceived attraction makes a significant contribution.

14

Table 5 further illustrates the importance of perceived

attraction in the manifestation of love. The regression of selfreported attraction on perceived virtue and attraction is
presented. Perceived attraction explains the most variance in
self-reported attractive love for the married and for the love
of both female and male parents. In all these instances the R2
statistics, partial correlations, and beta weights also indicate
the importance of perceived virtue as an additional independent
source of attractive love. This is particularly true for the
married and for love for the male parent.
Discussion. To view the data in broader theoretical
perspective, it appears that in an interactional context between
two persons, perceived attraction is generally the most
important factor in the expression of love, particularly
attractive love. This is consistent with the assumption that
attractive love is strongly motivated by positive interaction
that fulfills needs, while virtuous love is more closely related
to internal commitment to benefit the other. Virtue is thus less
influenced by the response of the other or the nature of
interaction (Jeffries 1993, 2002).
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Limitations
Both samples are not representative of the general
population. The marriage sample is composed only of religiously
active individuals who have been married 25 years or more, while

15

the family sample is composed only of university students. The

generalizability of the findings are limited by the
particularistic nature of both these samples. Limitations are
also inherent in the nature of survey data and the statistical
analysis. While regression gives explained variance, it does not
directly examine cause and effect.
Replication of Validity
The study provides additional evidence for the validity of
the Virtue-Attraction Scale (VAS) (Jeffries 1993). There is now
evidence it yields findings regarding the dimensions of love
that are consistent with theoretical expectations in two
important interpersonal relationships, those between spouses and
those between young adults and their parents.
Theoretical Development
Schematic Integration. A model for understanding the
meaningful integration of schemas with attitudes and behavior,
derived from the writings of Brewer and Nakamura (1984), Markus
and Zajonc (1985:142-174), and Rumelhart (1984), has been
presented. While schemas may be studied as separate entities,
they always exist in some relation to other schemas in the
psychic structure of the individual. Some schemas, such as the
love schema, may be highly systemic in nature. This form of
cognitive system is composed of multiple interrelated schemas
that exist in a hierarchial relation from abstract and general
to specific, with increasingly specific structures existing as

16

substructures embedded within more general ones.

Thus the benevolent love of giving of oneself for the
welfare of another contains subschemas of this love pertaining
to more specific circumstances, as manifested in the virtues.
The systemic nature of related schemas is created to the degree
there is a common meaning expressed in the different parts, as
in the love schemas of virtue and attraction at different levels
of abstraction. At the behavioral level of daily life and
interaction, schemas provide the psychic basis for the
formulation of attitudes. Attitude always implies behavior
toward some object external to the individual, and in so doing
links meaning to action in a social context (Ostrom 1984; Thomas
and Znaniecki 1958). Attitudes and their manifestation in
behavior are also activated and shaped by social situations as
they occur in sequence in the ongoing process of daily life
(Thomas 1966).

Schemas can be viewed as the internal

cognitive structures of mental life that are the necessary

foundation of attitudes. Within this integrated but
differentiated psychic structure the idea content of the
foundational schema is increasingly particularized. It is also
increasingly influenced by other schema that have their own
domain but are in some way and in some social situations related
to the system. These other schemas merge with the essential idea
content of the foundational schema and shape it as it finds
expression in attitudes. Thus role and relational schemas can

17

influence the configuration and manner of expression of the

attitudes entailed in the sentiment of love.
This model of the integration of schemas and attitudes
should apply to a wide variety of cognitive structures, in
addition to love schemas and corresponding attitudes. This study
has systematically tested only a small part of the model, that
which includes the separation of the love schemas of attraction
and virtue and the corresponding arrangement of their component
parts. The model needs to be subjected to more precise and
comprehensive tests with a variety of schematic contents, and
with different methodologies.
Transformative Processes. The influence of perceived love
from the other upon the individuals practice of virtue is of
particular theoretical and practical importance. A recent
article notes a shift in the study of marriage from a focus on
conflict to a theme of "transformative processes" (Fincham,
Stanley, and Beach 2007). These are processes that couples can
initiate themselves that will move the relationship in a
positive direction. Forgiveness, commitment, sacrifice, and
sanctification are identified as examples. All are embedded
within particular virtues in Aquinas typology of primary and
secondary virtues (Aquinas 1981:817-894,1263-1879). Research
shows that the virtues are related to relationship quality in
both marital and family relationships (Jeffries 1993, 2006). The
study of the sources and effects of the virtues can thus be

18

suggested as a further addition to this important new direction

in marriage and family theory and research. In this regard, the
findings of this study also raise the question of whether there
are similar transformative processes, including the virtues, in
both parent-child and marital relationships.
CONCLUSION
The empirical validation of a similar basic structure of
love in spousal and family relationships suggests that love has
common attributes in both relationships. Therefore, the
development, testing, and refinement of a general theory of love
and its effects in the interpersonal relations of marriage and
family could be of major theoretical and practical importance.
It may be the most effective path to knowledge and understanding
of how to improve these relationships that have such a profound
effect on individual lives, and thus ultimately on society.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This research was supported by the Institute for Research on
Unlimited Love, as part of the Fetzer Institute's initiative on
Scientific Research on Altruistic and Compassionate Love.
REFERENCES
Aquinas, Thomas. 1981. Summa Theologica. Westminister, MD:
Christian Classics.
Aristotle. 1941. The Basic Works of Aristotle. New York: Random
House.
Brewer, William F. and Glenn V. Nakamura. 1984. "The Nature and

19

Functions of Schemas" Pp. 119-160 in Handbook of Social

Cognition Volume 1, edited by Robert S. Wyer, Jr. and
Thomas

K. Srull. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Fincham, Frank D., Scott M. Stanley, and Steven R. H. Beach.

2007. "Transformative Processes in Marriage: An Analysis of
Emerging Trends." Journal of Marriage and Family
69:275-292.

Jeffries, Vincent. 1993. "Virtue and Attraction:

Validation of a

Measure of Love." Journal of Social and

Personal
Relationships 10: 99-117.
----. 1998. "Virtue and the Altruistic Personality."
Sociological

Perspectives 41: 151-166.

----. 2002. "The Structure and Dynamics of Love: Towards A

Theory

of Marital Quality and Stability." Humboldt Journal of

Social Relations 27: 42-72.

----. 2006. "Religiosity, Benevolent Love, and Long Lasting

Marriages." Humboldt Journal of Social Relations
30:77-106.
MacIntyre, Alasdair. 1984. After Virtue. Notre Dame, IN:
University of Notre Dame.
Markus, Hazel and R. B. Zajonc. 1985. "The Cognitive Perspective
in Social Psychology." Pp. 137-230 in Handbook of Social
Psychology Volume 1, edited by Gardner Lindzey and Elliot
Aronson. New York: Random House.
Moskowitz, Gordon B. 2005. Social Cognition. New York: Guilford

20

Press.
Ostrom, Thomas M. 1984. "The Sovereignty of Social Cognition."
Pp. 1-38 in Handbook of Social Cognition Volume 1, edited
by

Robert S. Wyer, Jr. and Thomas K. Srull. New Jersey:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Peterson, Christopher and Martin E. P. Seligman. 2004. Character

Strengths and Virtues. American Psychological Association:
Oxford University Press.
Pieper, Josef. 1966. The Four Cardinal Virtues. Notre Dame,IN:
Notre Dame.
Rumelhart, David E. 1984. "Schemata and the Cognitive System."
Pp. 161-188 in Handbook of Social Cognition Volume 1,
edited

by Robert S. Wyer, Jr. and Thomas

Jersey:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

K. Srull. New

Shibutani, Tamotsu. 1961. Society and Personality. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Singer, Irving. 1984a. The Nature of Love: Plato to Luther
Volume

1. (Second Edition). Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.
----. 1984b. The Nature of Love: Courtly and Romantic Volume 2.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
----. 1987. The Nature of Love: The Modern World Volume 3.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Stryker, Sheldon and Anne Statham. 1985. "Symbolic Interaction
and Role Theory." Pp. 311-378 in Handbook of Social

21

Psychology Volume 1, edited by Gardner Lindzey and Elliot

Aronson. New York: Random House.
Thomas, W. I. 1966. "Situational Analysis: The Behavior Pattern
and the Situation." Pp. 154-167 in W. I. Thomas on Social
Organization and Personality, edited by Morris Janowitz.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Thomas, W. I. and Florian Znaniecki. 1958. The Polish Peasant in
Europe and America. Volume 1 and 2. New York: Dover.
Turner, Ralph. 1970. Family Interaction. New York: John Wiley.
Table 1. Varimax Rotated Factor Matrixes of Scores Measuring
Self-Reported and Perceived Love between Spouses, with Criteria
of Two Factors.
Self-Reported Love
Factor 1
Factor 1: Attraction
companionship
emotional closeness
admiration
intimacy
trust
Factor 2: Virtue
prudence
justice
charity
temperance
fortitude
KMO .846 Bartlett <.000
Eigenvalues 3.33 2.87

Factor 2

h2

.79
.77
.77
.76
.75

.21
.34
.30
.24
.12

.67
.71
.68
.63
.57

.17
.12
.30
.25
.44

.81
.77
.75
.64
.59

.68
.60
.65
.47
.54

%variance

33.3

28.6

62.0

Perceived Love
Factor 1

22

Factor 2

h2

Factor 1: Virtue
fortitude
charity
prudence
temperance
justice

.85
.81
.76
.71
.67

.26
.39
.38
.31
.38

.79
.81
.72
.60
.59

Factor 2: Attraction
trust
companionship
emotional closeness
admiration
intimacy

.22
.45
.36
.38
.48

.81
.76
.76
.75
.60

.70
.78
.71
.70
.60

KMO .916 Bartlett <.000

Eigenvalues 3.65 3.35

%variance

36.5

33.5

70.0

Table 2. Varimax Rotated Factor Matrixes of Scores Measuring

Self-Reported and Perceived Love between Young Adults and Female
Parents, with Criterion of Two Factors.
Self-Reported Love
Factor 1
Factor 1: Attraction
emotional closeness
intimacy
admiration
trust
companionship
Factor 2: Virtue
justice
charity
temperance
prudence
fortitude

Factor 2

h2

.84
.81
.80
.78
.78

.34
.12
.29
.26
.41

.83
.67
.72
.68
.77

.24
.23
.18
.49
.49

.84
.82
.78
.67
.58

.77
.73
.64
.69
.58

23

KMO .923 Bartlett <.000

Eigenvalues 3.85 3.23

%variance

38.5

32.3

70.7

Perceived Love
Factor 1
Factor 1: Virtue
justice
fortitude
charity
prudence
temperance
Factor 2: Attraction
intimacy
admiration
trust
companionship
emotional closeness
KMO .942 Bartlett <.000
Eigenvalues 3.85 3.38

Factor 2

h2

.84
.84
.77
.76
.60

.26
.21
.41
.44
.40

.78
.74
.76
.77
.51

.13
.38
.40
.54
.55

.82
.77
.75
.69
.68

.68
.74
.72
.77
.76

%variance

38.5

33.8

72.3

Table 3. Varimax Rotated Factor Matrixes of Scores Measuring

Self-Reported and Perceived Love between Young Adults and Male
Parents, with Criterion of Two Factors.
Self-Reported Love
Factor 1
Factor 1: Attraction
emotional closeness
companionship
trust
intimacy
admiration

.83
.81
.80
.78
.77

24

Factor 2

h2

.31
.40
.34
.14
.39

.78
.81
.75
.63
.75

Factor 2: Virtue
justice
charity
temperance
fortitude
prudence

.27
.30
.20
.53
.54

KMO .925 Bartlett <.000

Eigenvalues 3.94 3.73

.84
.83
.78
.65
.64

%variance

39.4

.77
.78
.65
.70
.71
33.7

73.2

Perceived Love
Factor 1
Factor 1: Virtue
justice
fortitude
charity
prudence
temperance
Factor 2: Attraction
intimacy
admiration
emotional closeness
companionship
trust
KMO .933 Bartlett <.000
Eigenvalues 3.86 3.67

Factor 2

h2

.88
.87
.77
.74
.65

.21
.24
.46
.47
.47

.82
.82
.80
.76
.64

.10
.41
.44
.46
.44

.80
.77
.77
.75
.72

.65
.76
.79
.78
.71

%variance

38.6

36.7

75.4

Table 4. Stepwise Multiple Regression of Self-Reported Virtue on

Perceived Virtue and Perceived Attraction.
R2

R2ch

Married Sample
Spouses

25

Sig

Partial Beta

Perceived Attraction
Perceived Virtue

.34
.37

--.03

<.000
.030

.29
.22

.37
.28

Female Parent
Perceived Attraction
Perceived Virtue

.308
.310

--.002

<.000
.151

.36
.05

.50
.07

Male Parent
Perceived Virtue
Perceived Attraction

.40
.45

--.05

<.000
<.000

.31
.29

.37
.35

Family Sample

Table 5. Stepwise Multiple Regression of Self-Reported

Attraction on Perceived Virtue and Perceived Attraction.
R2

R2ch

Sig

Partial Beta

Married Sample
Spouses
Perceived Attraction
Perceived Virtue

.66
.74

--.08

<.000
<.000

.51
.48

.47
.44

Female Parent
Perceived Attraction
Perceived Virtue

.60
.62

--.02

<.000
<.000

.52
.22

.60
.23

Male Parent
Perceived Attraction
Perceived Virtue

.69
.74

--.05

<.000
<.000

.58
.40

.56
.35

Family Sample

26