Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Vol. 22, No.

3, 1993

The Romantic Experience of Adolescents in

Satisfying Love Relationships
Roger J. R. Levesque 1
Received August 27, 1990; accepted November 9, 1992

The love experiences of over 300 youths were analyzed to identify correlates
and predictors of satisfying love relationships. The project made use of a new
measure of love experiences and other measures specifically adapted for ado-
lescent populations. Results revealed striking resemblances between adolescent
and adult relationships in terms of the contributions of commitment, commu-
nication, companionship, and passion. Adolescent relationships differed from
those of adults in that there was no connection between a lack of negative
affects, conflict or trouble, and relationship satisfaction. Variables that previous
research had overlooked--exhilaration, growth, toleration, appreciation, and
specialness--played important roles. Similarities between the sexes abounded,
although there were also consistent patterns of differences.

INTRODUCTION

Several researchers have embarked on the empirical quest to under-

stand love's vicissitudes. The endeavor, however, has been significantly lim-
ited by the tendency to ignore adolescent love experiences. This research

The research was supported, in part, while the author was a predoctoral fellow in the Clinical
Research Training Program in Adolescence at Michael Reese Hospital and Medical Center,
and the University of Chicago. The grant was funded by the National Institute of Mental
Health 5T32 NH14668-14.
1Postdoctoral fellow, Center on Children, Families and the Law, University of
Nebraska-Lincoln. Received J.D. from Columbia University School of Law, New York, in
1993. Received Ph.D. from Department of Psychology, Committee on Human Development,
the University of Chicago, in 1990. Research interests include the development of adolescent
loving relationships, particularly in cultural contexts, with a focus informed by biosocial and
psychoanalytic models. Current interest lies in the examination of violent attachments in the
lives of adolescents.

219
0047-2891/93/0600-0219507.00/0 9 1993 PlenumPublishingCorporation
220 Levesque

effort extends our field of inquiry to the adolescent years. More specifically,
this project attempts to broaden our understanding of what specific rela-
tionship characteristics correlate with and predict relationship satisfaction
among adolescents. A better understanding of what contributes to relation-
ship satisfaction among adolescents may allow us to speculate about how
adolescent relationships differ from adult relationships, about the influ-
ences of gender on relationship satisfaction, and about the place love re-
lationships fill in our lives.

Literature Review

Loving Relationships

Major theoretical perspectives and empirical approaches to loving re-

lationships have emerged from previous research (Levesque, 1990). Re-
searchers have either focused their efforts on the components of specific
relationships or relationship styles.
Researchers who have focused on the components of loving relation-
ships have identified several components. The first to operationalize "love,"
Rubin (1970, 1973), developed a measure later found to index three com-
ponents: trust, caring, and need (Steck et al., 1982). The latest to opera-
tionalize love, Sternberg (1986), identified three components: intimacy,
commitment, and passion. Between Rubin and Sternberg, there were other
notable attempts to index loving relationships. For instance, Davis and
Todd (1982) argued that loving relationships could be distinguished by four
variables: viability, passion, intimacy, and support. Swensen and Trahaug
(1985), in contrast, found loving relationships to consists of six components:
expression of affection, self-disclosure, tolerance, moral support, unex-
pressed feelings, and material support.
Researchers who have focused their efforts on relationship styles have
grounded their efforts on Lee's (1973, 1988) original typology: eros (physical
love), m a n i a (obsessive love), storge (friendship, companionate love),
pragma (practical, objective love), ludus (game-playing love), and agape (all
giving, self-sacrificing love). Lee's effort to empirically capture how indi-
viduals approach relationships has received considerable empirical atten-
tion (Lasswell and Lasswell, 1976; Hendrick and Hendrick, 1986; Davis and
Latty-Mann, 1987; Sandor and Rosenthal, 1986; Hendrick and Hendrick,
1988, Hendrick et aL, 1988; Hendrick and Hendrick, 1989).
Despite striking advances, notable critics (Rubin, 1990; Berscheid,
1988; McClelland, 1986) have voiced their concerns: too high a premium
has been placed on quantification with the result that the complex nature
Romantic Experience 221

of love has not been sufficiently appreciated. Commentators assert that the
current efforts to quantify love will remain of little value if they are not
followed through in some way. That is, they assert that the object of the
love component and love style research should be to aid in the discovery
and understanding of the dynamics of loving relationships. To counter these
criticisms, this project aims to identify and operationalize important com-
ponents of love and to understand the dynamics of satisfying love relation-
ships.

Relationship Satisfaction

Investigators have had considerable success in measuring relationship

satisfaction (Spanier, 1976; Sharpley and Cross, 1982; Fletcher et al., 1987;
Hendrick, 1988). Likewise, researchers also effectively have identified sev-
eral contributors to, and correlates of, satisfying relationships. While the
generalizability of this research is limited because it focused on adults, often
included subjects who were not involved in relationships, and used different
measures and approaches, the results are instructive for they point to con-
sistent patterns.
The Hendrick and Hendrick research team has had considerable suc-
cess in linking aspects of relationships with relationship satisfaction. First,
they identified its most consistent correlate: communication (Hendrick,
1981). The positive relationship between quality of communication and re-
lationship satisfaction has received unwavering empirical support (see, e.g.,
Antill and Cotton, 1987; Fitzpatrick, 1987; Smith et al., 1990; Assh and
Byers, 1990). Second, the Hendricks identified a highly significant relation-
ship between commitment to, or investment in, the relationship and rela-
tionship satisfaction (Hendrick et al., 1988). This finding was also not
without considerable precedent (Murstein and MacDonald, 1983; Rusbult,
1983; Rusbult et al., 1986; Swensen and Trahaug, 1985; Broderick and
O'Leary, 1986). Third, the Hendrick and Hendrick team found that sexual
passion and intimacy lead to relationship satisfaction (Hendrick and Hen-
drick 1991). That link has also been repeatedly found by others (see, e.g.,
Snyder, 1979; Lewis and Spanier, 1979; Rettig and Bubloz, 1983; Snyder
et al., 1986).
Other researchers found that other aspects of relationships also linked
to relationships satisfaction. Ammons and Stinett (1980) found a positive
relationship between emotional support and relationship satisfaction. Rettig
and Bubloz (1983) found that companionship or shared time together also
contributed to relationship satisfaction. Margolin and Wampold (1981) ob-
served a link between the lack of conflict, or lack of negative affect and
222 Levesque

behaviors, and an increase in satisfaction. This finding has since been widely
documented (Krokoff et aL, 1988; Davis and Oathaut, 1987; Surra and
Longstreth, 1990).
Davis and Latty-Mann (1987) attempted to link relationship satisfac-
tion with love styles, instead of aspects of relationships. Their results re-
vealed that eros (physical love), agape (all giving, self-sacrificing love), and
ludus (game-playing love) correlated with relationship satisfaction. These
results have yet to receive empirical confirmation from other research ef-
forts.

Gender Differences

A venerable research tradition focusing on the relationship between

gender and sexual attitudes has resulted in a firmly established composite.
Males are more game playing, sexually permissive, and instrumental. Fe-
males are more friendship oriented, practical, dependent, and sometimes
more responsible and communal. In brief, then, males appear relatively
more goal oriented while females appear relatively more relationship ori-
ented (Bailey et al., 1987; Hendrick and Hendrick, 1986; Hendrick et aL,
1984; Hendrick et al., 1985). These findings concur with and support the
claim that men and women generally define and approach relationships
differently (e.g., White et al., 1986; Hatfield, 1983; Gilligan et al., 1988;
Whitley, 1988). Similar patterns have been noted to appear in adolescence,
a period understood to intensify gender role expectations (Hill and Lynch,
1983). Research on gender differences in social relationships during ado-
lescence, however, has dealt almost exclusively with same sex peers, as Blyth
and Foster-Clark (1987) have noted. Recent research confirms their claim;
investigations of gender-specific pathways to intimacy continue to focus on
friendship and same sex bonding (e.g., Camarena et aL, 1990).
Despite the apparently consistent gendered approach to relationships,
exactly how these approaches actually play themselves out in relationships
largely remains a mystery. Researchers have examined, sporadically but
quite informatively, the influence of gender on relationship satisfaction.
Murstein and MacDonald (1983) reported that, for men, marital satisfac-
tion was best predicted by their level of commitment while, for women,
marital satisfaction was equally well predicted by their own or their hus-
band's commitment. Davis and Oathout (1987) found that communication
was strongly predictive of relationship satisfaction for women, but not for
men. Hendrick et al. (1988) found that men's self-disclosure to their partner
predicted satisfaction, while for women, both self-disclosure and the per-
ceived ability to elicit self-disclosure were predictive. The Hendrick and
Romantic Experience 223

Hendrick team also reported a consistent lack of gender differences in

terms of both eros' (passionate love) and ludus' (game-playing love) both
relating to relationship satisfaction: the former positively and the latter
negatively correlated. The team also reported no differences in the positive
relationship between commitment and relationship satisfaction (Hendrick
et al., 1988). Other researchers have either found no sex differences (e.g.,
Assh and Byers, 1990; Rettig and Bubloz, 1983; Davis and Latty-Mann,
1987; Sandor and Rosenthal, 1986) or have not sought to investigate/report
them.

METHOD

Subjects

Over 300 youth who described themselves as currently engaged in a

dating relationship participated in this study. The students came from four
Chicago area high schools and one high school in rural Maine. (Recruit-
ment methods differed slightly between schools. In all cases, school officials
were contacted by the researcher. School officials were allowed to decide
how the study would be administered within their school. In some schools,
students participated in the study as part of a social science class activity
[however, only the questionnaires of dating students were retained for
analysis]. In other schools, officials announced that any students who were
dating could take part in this study by filling out the questionnaire during
scheduled sessions. All students were encouraged to discuss their relation-
ships as well as their reactions to the anonymous questionnaire. In two
schools, parental consent forms were used.) In total, the sample included
177 girls and 127 boys (58% vs. 42%, respectively). The students ranged
in age from 14 years to 18 years with a mean age of 17 for the sample as
a whole and for boys and girls separately.
For purposes of analyses not discussed here, the sample contained
adolescents from diverse ethnic groups and SES levels. The ethnic and SES
breakdown of the sample is as follows: White, working class = 27% (n =
82); Hispanic, working class = 17% (n = 53); White, upper class = 16%
(n = 48); Black, working to middle class = 22% (n = 68); Franco-Ameri-
can (French-Canadian descent), working to middle class = 17% (n = 53).
Within each group, slightly less than half of the participants were male.
Approximately one-fifth of both boys (21%) and girls (21%) were dat-
ing more than one partner; about half reported previous, serious romantic
involvements (51% of the boys and 50% of the girls). A considerable
amount of variation existed in the number of months of their involvement
224 Levesque

(M = 9.5, SD = 9.88 for boys; M = 13.2, SD = 13.02 for girls). Results

from the relationship satisfaction measure described below indicate that
most adolescents were satisfied with their love relationship (based on a
maximum rating of 30, boys averaged 21.91, SD = 5.42, and girls averaged
22.26, SD = 5.87).
All participants answered questionnaires anonymously, and were
treated in strict accordance with the ethical guidelines of the American
Psychological Association and the Department of Health and Education
Guidelines.

Measures

Background Information

A variety of demographic information was collected, including age,

religion, year in school, parental and family composition, parental occupa-
tion (for the Duncan Socioeconomic Index), place of birth, place where
raised, and language spoken at home. Participants were also asked to an-
swer the same questions in regard to their partners. In addition, the stu-
dents were asked about previous romantic involvements, length of time they
had been dating, how long they had known their partners, and recent
changes in their relationships.

Relationship Satisfaction

A cross between an abbreviated version of Spanier's (1976) relation-

ship satisfaction scale (see Sharpley and Cross, 1982) and Fletcher et al.'s
(1987) measure was used. It should be noted that, though independently
derived, the items here were similar to those included in Hendrick's (1988)
measure of relationship satisfaction. Statistical analyses revealed that the
measure's reliability was high; coefficient alpha from the present data was
.88. Relationship satisfaction items are presented in Appendix A.

Relationship Experiences

The measure of relationship experiences was developed specifically

for this project (Levesque, 1990). The purpose of the relationship experi-
ences measure is to provide subjects with statements about different aspects
of their relationship experience so that analyses can determine what factors
relate and/or contribute most to relationship satisfaction.
Romantic Experience 225

The index measures a person's relationship by focusing on what

he/she gives and gets from the relationship. Therefore, each major com-
ponent of love was measured both by what the subject perceived he/she is
giving to the relationship and what he/she is getting from the relationship.
Twelve components are indexed: emotional support, appreciation, commu-
nication, passion, commitment, toleration, possessiveness, growth, togeth-
erness, specialness, exhilaration and painfulness. Table I presents the
components, their definitions, and representative items. All items of the
final measure are presented in Appendix A.
Instrument construction drew from a large pool of statements refer-
ring to thoughts, feelings, and behaviors one may experience in loving re-
lationships. Twelve components were identified and indexed by items
suggested by a large number of theoretical, literary, personal, and empirical
sources. Categories (directions) of exchange (give and get) within each love
component were then differentiated. A ten-member panel of faculty and
student judges selected the items that would best index particular love con-
structs. To ensure content and face validity, another panel of ten new fac-
ulty and students successfully sorted items back into the correct
components. Items with low validity were either changed or deleted.
Four more stages of instrument construction and reconstruction fol-
lowed to determine whether the measure validly tapped into a psychosocial
and phenomenological reality. The categories were double checked against
150 adolescents' narrative responses to the question "What does it feel like
to be in love?" The questionnaire was then administered to 25 subjects
with diverse relationship experiences--from dating for a few months to
being married for more than 35 years. Only slight changes were made. Last
15 high school students were administered the measure and interviewed in
depth. The measure was then determined complete and ready for the major
study. Statistical analyses based on the final sample are presented below.

Love Styles

To complement the love experience index, an established measure of

love styles was used. This measure was originally presented by Lasswell
and Lasswell (1976), and is based on Lee's (1973) typology. The measure
was further developed by Hendrick and Hendrick (1986). In this research
a slightly abbreviated version of Hendrick and Hendrick's measure was
used. The measure indexes the following styles of love: eros (physical love),
mania (obsessive love), storge (friendship, companionate love), pragma
(practical, objective love), ludus (game-playing love), and agape (all giving,
self-sacrificing love). Items are presented in Appendix A.
 It~
t~

Table I. Love Components and Exchange Directionsa

Love components Meaning
Emotional support Affectionate feelings, emotional security,
supporting partner through difficult times
Appreciation Respect, approval, admiration
Communication Self-disclosure, routine, and
honest communication
Togetherness Affiliative thoughts, emotions, and
behaviors----playing, being with the
loved one, having a concept of union
Passion Physical and sexual intimacy, excitement,
fantasizing about the partner
Commitment Loyalty, commitment to the relationship,
expecting to be together, wanting the
relationship to work
Specialness Uniqueness, idealism, belief in
relationship's differentness
Toleration Willingness to change for other,
Statement sample
"He comforts me when
I need comforting."
"I think he has good ideas."
"She really listens
to what I have to say."
"I am happiest when we are together."
"I like to touch and be touched by her."
"He expects to be close by me forever."
"I feel that he was meant for me."
,r
"I am patient with him."
 to compromise and to accept faults
of partner and relationship ~a
Ill
~o
Growth Encouraging independence, growth, self- "I am pleased when she pursues
actualization, interest in partner and her own interests."
each other as individuals and as a couple
Possessiveness Jelousy, dependency, fear of loss and "He watches how I act with other guys."
rejection, some lack of trust, awareness
of competition for the partner
Painfulness The upsets, pains, disappointments, "Sometimes I don't know why I
frustrations, and depressions put up with the things he does or says."
Exhilaration Feeling "crazy" for each other, the happy, "He makes me become alive."
giddy side of the relationship
Exchange direction Meaning Statement sample
Getting Extent to which subject receives "I enjoy studying his
love components body and movements."
Giving Extent to which subject gives "I help him through difficult times."
love components
aEach component is further subdivided into categories of exchange, e.g., the extent to which partners receive or give
commitment, growth, etc.
228 Levesque

Data Analyses

Preliminary Analyses

Data analysis started with examining the previous theoretical and em-
pirical delineation of constructs by using traditional factor analytic proce-
dures. Each measure was analyzed with principal-component factor
analysis, using varimax rotation. Consistent with the measure's construction,
twelve factors for each relationship experience dimension (giving and get-
ting) and six for the love style measure were stipulated.
Results of the factor analyses of the love experience measure were con-
sistent with pilot studies and theoretical work. As Table IIA shows, only one
item from our getting measures factored more highly on an "unexpected" con-
struct. The item "She is willing to change for me" (Toleration) loaded more
consistently with giving commitment than toleration. Consultation with a
group of adolescents led us to conclude that the item fit best in the com-
mitment category; from that point, it was transferred to that component. As
Table liB demonstrates, the giving measures also were psychometrically ro-
bust. Although three components loaded highly on the first factor (togeth-
erness, specialness, and commitment), they were kept as separate factors since
they also had loaded independently and pilot and theoretical research pointed
to their independence. It seems, then, that there was no considerable overlap
of items. These results strongly indicated that dimensions of love experiences
do indeed exist and that they are well differentiated by the items.
Although the constructs were well differentiated, a series of reliability
analyses were conducted to establish the reliability of constructs as
subscales. As Table III shows, coefficient alphas were rather high; they av-
eraged .78 and ranged from .61 to .92. These results, in conjunction with
intensive pilot work briefly described above, led us to conclude that a useful
measure of love experiences had been attained.
Factor structures of our love style measure were consistent with pre-
vious work. As Table IV shows, the 36 items loaded consistently with Lee's
(1973) original conceptualization of the love styles. Compared to previous
work with similar items (e.g., Davis and Latty-Mann, 1987; Hendrick and
Hendrick, 1986; Hendrick et aL, 1988), reliability coefficients were relatively
high: Agape, .88; Mania, .84; Ludus, .76; Eros, .78; Pragma, .80; Storge, .71.

Main Analyses

In addition to identifying correlates of relationship satisfaction among

adolescents, a major goal was to examine which factors would predict re-
 O

Table llh. Factor Loadings for the Getting from Relationships Items
Factors
Component items 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Togetherness .61
.52
.36
Growth .36
.68
.66
Appreciation .51
.61
.28
Specialness .54
.50
.62
Possessiveness .81
.64
.75
Communication .46
.65
.82

I,J
 tO
ta

Table IIA. continued

Exhilaration 1 .84
2 .84
3 .83
Toleration 1 .81 .18
2 .76
3 .76
Passion 1
2
3
Painfulness 1 .86
2 .80
3 .75
Emotional support 1 .61
2 .68
3 .75
Commitment 1 .71
2 .46
3 .81

g,
,r
 7.
r0
Table liB. Factor Loadings for the Giving to Relationships Items
Factors
Component items 1 .2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Togetherness 1 .56 .21
2 .45 .20
3 .61 .20
Growth 1 .44
2 .83
3 .48
Appreciation 1 .38
2 .75
3 .58
Specialness 1 .61 .30
2 .80 .20
3 .51 .31
Possessiveness 1 .86
2 .78
3 .79
Communication 1 .34
2 .71
3 .71

t-o
 Table liB. continued
Exhilaration .66
.55
.62
Toleration .86
.47
.64
Passion .87
.40
.86
Painfulness .79
.78
.88
Emotional support .49
.72
.48
Commitment .84
.75
.84

.8
Romantic Experience 233

Table III. Reliability Coefficients of Relationship

Experiences Measures a
Variable Giving Getting
Togetherness .84 .79
Growth .61 .87
Appreciation .78 .73
Specialness .80 .89
Possessiveness .75 .77
Communication .61 .67
Exhilaration .83 .92
Toleration .72 .77
Passion .73 .85
Painfulness .78 .78
Emotional support .77 .83
Commitment .86 .84
aCoefficient alphas are based on the entire sample (N
= 304).

lationship satisfaction, To this end, backward multiple regression analyses

were used to determine the combined impact of the components of love
experiences and relationship styles on relationship satisfaction. Backward
multiple regression proceeds by entering all variables on the first step and
continues by eliminating those variables--when controlling for all other
independent variables--that fail to account substantially for the variance
in the dependent variable. For the present analyses, regression equations
were also entered for each sex separately.

Potential Confounds

A major statistical confound that could inflate the significance of

findings is multicollinearity. As Lewis-Beck (1980) suggests, when multi-
collinearity is suspected, each independent variable should be regressed
on all the other independent variables. When any R 2 is near 1.0, there is
high multicollinearity. In the present data, a series of regression runs
yielded no support for the presence of multicollinearity among variables.
Three separate groups of independent variables I giving, getting, and love
s t y l e s - - w e r e regressed on each other. No combination of predictor vari-
ables was found to account significantly for the variance in any one inde-
pendent variable group. For this type of analysis, R 2 values reflecting
234 Levesque

Table IV. Factor Loadings for the Relationship Style Items

Factors
Style Items 1 2 3 4 5 6
Agape 1 ,47
2 ,82
3 .84
4 .82
5 .71
6 .73
Mania 1 .66
2 ,69
3 ,78
4 ,79
5 .72
6 .69
Ludus 1 .62
2 .72
3 .65
4 .58
5 .36
6 .81
Eros 1 .69
2 .81
3 .77
4 ,56
5 .61
6 .57
Pragma 1 .59
2 .55
3 .70
4 .80
5 .79
6 .74
Storge 1 .40
2 .53
3 .62
4 .75
5 .77
6 .65

accounted variance were rather low: .49 (giving), .52 (getting), and .06
(love styles).
To assist readers in their own examination of the data and analyses
presented below, means and standard deviations for each love style and
love experience variables, by sex, are provided in Table V.
Romantic Experience 235

Table V. Love Components and Love Styles Means and Standard

Deviationsa
Males Females
Mean SD Mean SD
Giving to relationships
Togetherness 15.41 2.75 15.43 2.28
Growth 16.28 1.89 16.07 2.10
Appreciation 15.55 2.64 15.25 2.32
Specialness 14.91 3.32 14.76 3.26
Possessiveness 13.28 3.54 14.06 3.43
Communication 14.55 3.10 13.92 2.99
Exhilaration 14.31 2.86 14.16 2.93
Toleration 14.46 3.23 13.92 3.01
Passion 15.37 2.53 15.58 2.56
Painfulness 11.83 3.90 12.21 3.88
Emotional support 15.66 2.45 15.28 2.27
Commitment 12.71 4.53 12.68 4.43
Getting from relationships
Togetherness 15.05 2.53 15.39 2.56
Growth 13.80 3.77 13.57 3.44
Appreciation 15.45 2.69 15.05 2.46
Specialness 13.55 4.11 13.13 3.99
Possessiveness 11.81 3.59 12.31 3.83
Communication 14.83 2.96 14.33 2.93
Exhilaration 14.21 3.57 14.55 3.02
Toleration 13.93 2.84 13.89 2.89
Passion 15.17 2.91 14.71 2.82
Painfulness 11.72 4.01 11.66 4.17
Emotional support 15.03 3.10 15.00 2.73
Commitment 16.66 4.89 17.14 5.15
Love styles
Agape 4.89 1.10 5.35 .85
Pragma 3.39 1.51 3.19 1.51
Storge 3.57 1.65 3.10 1.77
Eros 4.25 1.43 4.17 1.76
Mania 3.39 1.53 3.46 1.75
Ludus 3.45 1.65 3.15 1.68
aTotal subjects N = 304; males N = 127; females N = 177.

RESULTS

Correlates and Predictors of Relationship Satisfaction

The Entire Sample

Table VI presents the results obtained from correlating relationship

s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e l o v e e x p e r i e n c e v a r i a b l e s . W h e n t h e e n t i r e s a m p l e is
236 Levesque

analyzed, most of the love experiences correlated rather highly with rela-
tionship satisfaction. Only two variables failed to show a significant asso-
ciation with relationship satisfaction: painfulness and possessiveness. More
specifically stated, in terms of giving to the relationship, togetherness (p <
.001), growth (p < .05), appreciation (p < .001), specialness (p < .001),
communication (p < .001), exhilaration (p < .001), toleration (p < .05),
passion (p < .001), emotional support (p < .001), and commitment (p <
.001) all significantly correlated with relationship satisfaction. Only pain-
fulness and possessiveness proved not to be correlatives. In terms of getting
from the relationship, togetherness (p < .001), growth (p < .001), appre-
ciation (p < .001), specialness (p < .001), communication (p < .01), tol-
eration (p < .001), passion (p < .001), emotional support (p < .001), and
commitment (p < .001) all significantly correlated with relationship satis-
faction. Again, painfulness and possessiveness proved not to be correla-
tives.
Table VII presents the results of regression analyses predicting rela-
tionship satisfaction from love experiences. As Table VII shows, two rela-
tionship experiences that adolescents perceived they were giving to the
relationship predicted satisfaction: exhilaration (p < .001) and togetherness
(p < .001). Three relationship experiences that adolescents perceived they
were getting from the relationship were predictive: specialness (p < .05),
togetherness (p < .05), and exhilaration (p < .001).
Table VI also presents the love style, or approaches to relationships,
correlates of relationship satisfaction. For the entire sample, eros and agape
both correlated positively with relationship satisfaction (both at p < .001),
while ludus negatively correlated (p < .001). Storge, pragma, and mania
proved to be unrelated to relationship satisfaction.
Table VII presents the results of regression analyses predicting rela-
tionship satisfaction from love styles. As that table shows, pragma (p <
.05) and mania (p < .05) negatively predicted satisfaction. Agape (t9 <
.001) and eros (p < .001) both showed a strong positive predictive rela-
tionship to relationship satisfaction.

Gender Similarities and Differences

Correlations were helpful in pointing to sex differences and similari-

ties. As Table VI shows, several similarities in correlates existed. In terms
of giving to the relationship, six components correlated with relationship
satisfaction for both boys and girls: togetherness (p < .001 for boys, p <
.001 for girls), appreciation (p < .001 for boys, p < .01 for girls), specialness
(p < .001 for boys, p < .001 for girls), exhilaration (p < .001 for boys, p
Romantic Experience 237

T a b l e VI. C o r r e l a t e s o f R e l a t i o n s h i p S a t i s f a c t i o n a

Males and
Females Males Females

G i v i n g to r e l a t i o n s h i p s
Togetherness .36 c .50 c .24 c
Growth .17 b .23 b .14
Appreciation .29 c .39 c .23 b
Speeialness .34 c .44 c .27 c
Possessiveness .07 .19 -.01
Communication .19 c .36 c .08
Exhilaration .37 c .40 c .35 c
Toleration .17 b .30 c .09
Passion .20 c .13 .24 c
Painfulness -.09 -.09 -.09
Emotional support .28 c .36 c .23 b
Commitment .33 c .43 c .26 c

Getting from relationships

Togetherness .37 c .48 c .30 c
Growth .31 c .44 c .22 b
Appreciation .26 c .33 c .21 b
Specialness .38 c .47 c .32 c
Possessiveness -.07 -.09 -.06
Communication .15 b .13 .17
Exhilaration .41 c .46 c .39 c
Toleration .22 c .21 b .23 r
Passion .20 c .19 .21 b
Painfulness -.09 -.09 -.09
Emotional support .28 c .34 c .23 c
Commitment .29 c .34 c .25 c

L o v e styles
Eros .20 c .10 .25 c
Ludus -.18 c -.13 -.22 b
Storge -.03 .15 -.14
Pragma -.13 -.08 -.16
Mania -.04 .05 -.09
Agape .49 c .58 c .43 c

a T o t a l s u b j e c t s N = 304; m a l e s N = 127; f e m a l e s N
177.
bp < .01.
Cp < .001.

< .001 for girls), emotional support (p < .001 for boys, p < .01 for girls),
and commitment (p < .001 for boys, p < .001 for girls). For boys, however,
toleration (p < .001), communication (p < .001), and growth (p < .01)
also correlated with relationship satisfaction. For girls, only giving passion
(p < .001) also correlated. It is important to note that neither painfulness
238 Levesque

nor possessiveness significantly correlated with relationship satisfaction for

either sex.
In terms of getting from the relationship, sex differences in correlates
of relationship satisfaction were also minimal. Table VI also shows that,
for both boys and girls, the following correlated with relationship satisfac-
tion: togetherness (p < .001 for boys, p < .001 for gifts), growth (p < .001
for boys, p < .01 for girls), appreciation (p < .001 for boys, p < .01 for
girls), specialness (p < .001 for boys, p < .001 for girls), exhilaration (p <
.001 for boys, p < .001 for girls), toleration (p < .01 for boys, p < .001
for girls), emotional support (p < .001 for boys, p < .001 for gifts), and
commitment (p < .001 for boys, p < .001 for girls). Only one sex difference
was found: for girls, getting passion (p < .01) significantly correlated with
satisfaction. Again, it is important to note that, for either sex, communi-
cation, possessiveness, and painfulness failed to correlate with satisfaction.
Table VI further presents sex similarities and differences in the love
style correlates. For boys, only agape (p < .001) was related to relationship
satisfaction. For girls, in addition to agape (p < .001), eros (p < .001) was
positively related while ludus (p < .01)was negatively related. Storge,
pragma, and mania failed to correlate with relationship satisfaction for
either sex.
Attempts to predict relationship satisfaction also revealed significant
similarities and differences between the sexes in the experience of adoles-
cent relationship satisfaction. As Table VII shows, giving exhilaration (p <
.10 for boys, and p < .05 for girls) and getting specialness (p < .05 for
boys, and p < .05 for girls) predicted satisfaction. Likewise, in terms of
love style, Table VII shows that agape positively predicted satisfaction for
both sexes (p < .001 for boys, and p < .001 for girls) and that mania nega-
tively predicted satisfaction for sexes (p < .05 for boys, and p < .05 for
girls).
Striking sex differences also existed. As Table VII shows, when the
sexes were analyzed separately, both giving togetherness and getting to-
getherness strongly distinguished between male and female adolescents. For
boys, both giving togetherness (p < .001), and getting togetherness (p < .001),
were highly predictive of relationship satisfaction, while there was no such
relationship for girls. Likewise, getting communication was negatively pre-
dictive only for boys (p < .001). For girls, however, giving specialness (p <
.05), getting exhilaration (p < .001) and getting tolerance (p < .05) were
all positively predictive. Likewise, getting growth was negatively predictive
(p < .05) for girls only.
As Table VII demonstrates, there were also some differences in how
love styles predicted relationship satisfaction. For boys, storge was positively
Romantic Experience 239

Table VII. V a r i a b l e s P r e d i c t i n g R e l a t i o n s h i p Satisfaction a

Males and
Females Males Females

b Beta b Beta b Beta

G i v i n g to r e l a t i o n s h i p s
Exhilaration .52 d .27 .31 b .16 .59 c .29
Togetherness .55 d .24 .82 d .41 -- --
Specialness . . . . .31 c .17

F 34.06 d 23.32 d 15.49 a

R2 .18 .27 .15
Intercept 6.18 5.01 9.35
Getting from relationships
Togetherness .31 c .14 1.01 d .48 -- --
Growth . . . . . .37 c -.22
Specjalness .20 c .14 .30 c .23 .28 c .19
Exhilaration .39a .22 -- -- .72 a .37
Communication -- -- -.42 c -.23 -- --
Toleration . . . . .29 c .14

F 24.65 d 18.41 a 9.93 d

R2 .20 .30 .19
Intercept 9.13 8.61 9.05

L o v e styles
Agape 2.79 `/ .48 3.03 a .62 2.81 a .41
Pragma -.40 c -.11 -- -- -.48 c -.13
Storge -- -- .52 c .16 -- --
Eros .50a .14 -- -- .74 c .22
Mania -.38 c -.11 -.49 c -.14 -.44 c -.13
Ludus . . . . . .

F 29.50 d 24.44 d 15.49 `/

R2 .28 .37 .15
Intercept 8.13 4.35 9.35

a T o t a l subjects N = 304; m a l e s N = 127; f e m a l e s N = 177.

bp < .10.

~p < .05.
< .001.

predictive (p < .05). For girls, on the other hand, pragma was negatively
predictive (p < .05) while eros was positively predictive (p < .05).

DISCUSSION

The following highlights aspects of adolescent relationships that were

found to relate to satisfying love relationships. Correlates and their predic-
240 Levesque

tive values are discussed in light of current research, beliefs about adoles-
cence, and conceptions of the way the sexes approach intimate relation-
ships.
Previous research had found several relationship satisfaction corre-
lates. To the extent that these variables are simply correlates, there seems
to be a surprising resemblance between variables associated with adult re-
lationship satisfaction and those associated with relationship satisfaction in
the present adolescent sample. For example, the relationship components
of passion, giving and getting communication, commitment, emotional sup-
port, and togetherness all correlated with relationship satisfaction among
adolescents sampled here. As noted previously, other researchers have
shown the individual contribution of each of these components to relation-
ship satisfaction among adults (e.g., Hendrick et aL, 1988; Hendrick and
Hendrick, 1991; Assh and Byers, 1990; Smith et al., 1990; Ammons and
Stinett, 1980; Swensen and Trahaug, 1985). In terms of love styles, adoles-
cents sampled here resembled adults sampled by Davis and Latty-Mann
(1987) in that eros (physical love), agape (all giving, self-sacrificing love),
and ludus (game-playing love) correlated with relationship satisfaction. It
seems, then, that there are rather striking similarities between adolescent
and adult satisfying love relationships.
Despite general concurrences between the dynamics of satisfying ado-
lescent and adult relationships, there were unusual deviations. Contrary to
what consistently had been found in adult relationships (Margolin and
Wampold, 1981; Krokoff et al., 1988; Davis and Oathaut, 1987; Surra and
Longstreth, 1990), there was no indication of a reverse relationship between
negative affect, trouble or conflict, and adolescent relationship satisfaction,
as revealed in the lack of correlation between either painfulness (both giv-
ing and getting) or possessiveness (both giving and getting) and relationship
satisfaction. If there was any link between relationship satisfaction and con-
flict, it was in the opposite direction: toleration, be it either giving or get-
ting, was positively correlated with relationship satisfaction.
The significance of the above divergence becomes appreciable when
seen in light of other variables that previous research had overlooked. Four
previously unidentified variables--exhilaration, growth, appreciation, and
specialness w be it either giving or getting these components of love rela-
tionships, correlated highly with relationship satisfaction. It seems, then,
that a major difference between adolescent and adult relationship satisfac-
tion is the strong connection between relationship satisfaction and the sense
of excitement, idealism, and the sense that they are meant for each other.
While negative affects may negatively correlate with relationship satisfac-
tion among adults, feelings that are part of positive affects seem to be of
greater importance to relationship satisfaction among adolescents.
Romantic Experience 241

The importance of positive affects in the relationship experiences of

adolescents was also apparent in attempts to predict relationship satisfac-
tion. That is, none of the key variables (commitment, communication, and
passion) researchers had previously identified as operating in adult rela-
tionships predicted relationship satisfaction. In terms of giving to relation-
ships, only exhilaration and togetherness were predictive. In terms of
getting from relationships, exhilaration, togetherness and specialness pre-
dicted satisfaction.
The picture that arises of the experience of adolescents in satisfying
love relationships, then, is consistent with popular notions of adolescent
love. From the content of the togetherness items, we can infer that ado-
lescents involved in satisfying relationships enjoy being with the loved one,
are happiest when together, and when they see themselves as involved in
a wonderful friendship. From the content of the exhilaration items, we can
say that excitement, "being crazy" about each other, strongly contributed
to relationship satisfaction. From the content of the specialness items, we
can conclude that a certain idealization, a sense that they were meant for
each other, that their partner is the most important person in their life,
also strongly contributed to relationship satisfaction.
The findings relating to the experience of relationship satisfaction
were buttressed by the results of love styles analyses. Complementary pat-
terns emerged. Similar to the finding regarding exhilaration was the finding
that eros contributed to relationship satisfaction. There was a feeling of
having had the right physical chemistry and having had a deep, intense
passion at the initial stages of courtship. The togetherness dimension re-
vealed itself in the strong predictive power of agape. There was a strong
sense that the partners would and could rough it out together. This is not
to say, however, that this sense was realistic. There continued to be signs
of idealism pointed to earlier in the experience of specialness and again
reinforced in two strong negatively predictive love styles: both pragma and
mania negatively predicted satisfaction. That is, there was no focus on how
the partner actually fit into extended future plans. The less the adolescents
saw their relationships heading toward marriage and future commitment
(pragma), the happier they were. There was more of a focus on the im-
mediate feelings, as reflected in the finding that worrying and getting de-
pressed about their relationships, feeling sick all over, having trouble
concentrating and losing sleep (mania) was definitely not conducive to the
establishment of a satisfying relationship.
When correlations were run for each sex, similarities between the
sexes were prominent. For both boys and girls, six relationship experiences
were positively related to relationship satisfaction: togetherness, apprecia-
tion, specialness, exhilaration, emotional support, and commitment. These
242 Levesque

correlates were related to relationship satisfaction regardless of whether it

was in the giving or getting category. Findings also revealed that, for both
boys and girls, getting growth and toleration was positively related to sat-
isfaction.
There were, however, some differences in correlates. For boys, unlike
for girls, giving toleration, giving communication and giving growth also
positively correlated with how satisfied with the relationship they felt.
While, for girls, unlike for boys, giving passion was correlated with how
satisfied they felt. The passion variable was the only significant one that
showed a difference between the sexes in terms of the getting category of
relationship experience. For girls, getting passion related strongly to how
happy they were with the relationship.
An analysis of the love styles essentially confirmed the above simi-
larities and differences. For both boys and girls, agape was a very strong
correlate of relationship satisfaction. Major differences emerged in corre-
lating eros and ludus for girls. Similar to the way passion was related to
the experience of satisfaction for girls, eros positively related to relationship
satisfaction. There is also some indication that the girls were more satisfied
when the relationship was treated more monogamously and less like a
game; that is, ludus was negatively related to satisfaction. These findings
are at variance with previous research with adult couples. Davis and Latty-
Mann (1987) had reported no sex differences in correlations between ludus,
agape, eros, and relationship satisfaction; and had reported n o relationships
between pragma, mania, and storge with relationship satisfaction.
The above may lead one to believe the sexes are indeed very similar
in their experience of relationship satisfaction. The only hints of difference
would be the ways in which (1) passion, eros, and ludus related only to
the girls' relationship satisfaction and (2) giving communication, toleration,
and growth related to relationship satisfaction only for boys. These findings
may be understood to be pointing to the divergent ways sexuality and other-
centered variables may influence relationships. Boys were most satisfied
when actively involved in doing emotional work. Girls were most satisfied
when the relationship was sexually charged, when they were receiving pas-
sion. The interesting aspect of these findings would be that boys and girls
were most satisfied when they did what the opposite sex was, traditionally
(at least in the scholarly literature), supposed to do. The males were in-
volved in communication and emotional work while the girls were experi-
encing the heights of sexual excitement. Without similar and consistent
findings in adult relationships, it is difficult to conclude whether these find-
ings are simply an aspect of adolescent relationships or of general relation-
ship development. Nor are we able to advance propositions as to which
came first m a satisfying relationship made boys get involved in emotional,
Romantic Experience 243

other-centered work and girls get passionately involved, or vice versa, or

whether boys and girls who happen to possess the tendency to be that way
are the ones who end up with the most satisfying relationships.
Regardless of the reasons/explanations for the above divergences, re-
curring themes surfaced when an attempt was made, again, to predict the
effect of the love experience and love styles on either boys or girls' rela-
tionship satisfaction. Sex differences emerged that again pointed to differ-
ences in how emotional work and passion were handled. Getting toleration
was important for adolescent gifts' relationship satisfaction. The girls who
were the most satisfied felt their partners were more willing to put up with
them. Girls were also more satisfied when they received less growth; the
more they were able to mesh with the boys' needs or wants, the more sat-
isfied they were. This would support the proposition that the sex differences
noted earlier--satisfied boys experienced emotional work while satisfied
girls experienced passion - - may be the result of a general decrease in emo-
tional work needed in satisfied couples. That is, the less emotional work
the boys needed to do, the more satisfied both sexes were. This proposition
was further supported by the negative relationship found between getting
communication and feeling satisfaction for boys. Boys were most satisfied
when they were not getting deep emotional communication. This finding
concurred with the finding that the boys who were most satisfied were those
who enjoyed giving communication, and both giving and getting together-
ness. As revealed by the love style predictor variables, boys were most sat-
isfied when they approached the relationship in terms of a simple
friendship, in a storgic way, while girls were most satisfied when they ap-
proached the relationship as a deep, passionate involvement, as indicated
by the strong predictability of eros. Although the complexity of the above
sex differences may defy clear-cut interpretations, informed speculation
points to potential outcomes. It seems that girls who are most satisfied
simply lower (or just have lower) expectations of what their partner will
let them become; the most satisfied feel their partners are putting up with
them and they do not demand much in terms of emotional work. The in-
teresting corollary is the finding that boys are most satisfied when they are
not receiving much deep emotional communication; they are most satisfied
when they simply are with their partner. Exactly what the implications of
these findings are for the development of male/female relationships re-
mains a mystery, but it may help explain why couples eventually end up in
distress: emotional work is stifled from the beginning of the relationship.
Regression analyses, however, revealed similarities between the sexes
in addition to the above noted differences. Exhilaration and specialness for
both adolescent boys and girls again predicted satisfaction. Likewise, agape
(positively) and mania (negatively) predicted satisfaction for both sexes.
244 Levesque

Thus, while there may be consistent sex differences, we must not neglect
the invariable and almost inevitable result that, regardless of one's sex, sat-
isfying adolescent relationships also consist of high levels of exhilaration,
emotional sacrifice, idealism, and comfort in the belief that their partner
is interested in them. Researchers have yet to notice the importance of
these variables in adult relationships, although we would intuitively believe
them to exist.
This investigation, then, has both affirmed and called into question
various beliefs about love relationships in adolescence. For example, con-
sistent with ideas of the adolescent period, it was found that idealism and
emotional intensity played major roles in relationship satisfaction. But un-
like what has previously been thought, adolescent relationships were re-
markably similar to adult relationships. For example, commitment, passion,
communication, togetherness, and emotional support play significant roles
in adolescent and adult relationship satisfaction. It is also important to note
that the nature of love in satisfying relationships was, in several ways, simi-
lar for male and female adolescents, but that distinct differences also ex-
isted. These differences have heretofore found no counterpart in adult
relationship research. The differences between adult and adolescent rela-
tionships, however, were only based on extrapolations. Important questions
remain. Exactly how adolescent love is a prelude to later love, if it is a
prelude at all, is worthy of research. This project, then, has brought to
attention the need to investigate adolescent love relationships not only to
understand adolescence but also to better understand relationships. Chart-
ing more precisely the development of relationships throughout life remains
a continuing and potentially fruitful challenge for research.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to thank anonymous reviewers for their comments

on an earlier draft of this paper, as well as the schools and students who
participated in the study.

APPENDIX A

Measures

All questionnaire items were in the form of a scale item with a 6-point
Likert response format. Responses ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6
Romantic Experience 245

(strongly agree). Responses to items marked with an asterisk were reversed

for coding purposes.

Relationship Satisfaction

In general, I am satisfied with our relationship.

Compared to other people's relationships, ours is pretty good.
I often wish I hadn't gotten into this relationship."
Our relationship has met my best expectations.
Our relationship is just about the best relationship I could hope to have with any-
body.

Relationship Experiences

Note that, for each component, the giving are the first three items
and the last three are the getting items. Both sexes responded to identical
items, except for changes of pronouns and "girlfriend" for "boyfriend."
Togetherness
I am happiest when we are together.
I try to arrange my time so that I can be with her.
I really care for her.
She acts thoughtfully.
She is a great companion.
I like the way I feel when I am with her.

Possessiveness
I get upset when she shows interest in other guys.
I like it when she pays attention to only me.
I watch other guys' reactions to her.
She watches how I act with other girls.
Sometimes she doesn't believe that ! love only her.
She's jealous of my relationships with other people.

Growth
246 Levesque

I am happy when she succeeds.

I want her to be a success according to her own standards.
I like it when she does things on her own.
She makes m e feel complete.
She helps me become what I want to be.
She m a k e s me feel emotionally stronger.

Communication

I never have to lie to her.

She listens to me when I need s o m e o n e to talk to.

I find it easy to tell her how I feel.

I really listen to what she has to say.

She tells m e about her weaknesses and strengths.
She finds it easy to tell me how she feels.

Exhilaration

I m a k e her really happy.

She's really "crazy" for me.

She thinks our relationship is terrific.

She m a k e s me feel fantastic.

She m a k e s m e become "alive."
She m a k e s me feel very happy.

Toleration

I am patient with her.

I accept her for what she is.
I'm willing to forgive her for almost anything.
She recognizes and accepts faults in me.
She takes me for what I am.

Passion

She feels romantically excited when with me.

I want to look attractive for her.
It is easy for her to be romantic with me.
Romantic Experience 247

I get romantically excited just thinking about her.

I enjoy studying her body and her movements.
I feel romantically excited when with her.

Appreciation
I think she has good ideas.
I admire her persistence in getting after things that are important to her.
I take pride in her accomplishments.
She thinks my ideas are important.
She respects my values and beliefs, although they don't always agree with hers.
She knows when something is bothering me.

Emotional support
I help her through difficult times.
I make her feel self-confident.
I am concerned about how she feels.
She helps me find solutions to my problems.
She comforts me when I need comforting.
She tries to get me in a good mood when I am angry.

Painfulness
She sometimes gets angry at me.
Dating me can sometimes be painful for her.
Sometimes I really upset her.
I sometimes get upset because things don't go well between us.
She can really hurt my feelings.
Sometimes I don't know why I put up with the things she does or says.

Commitment
I want to spend my life with her.
I will always be loyal to her.
I expect to always love her.
Her fantasy is to be married to me forever,
When it comes to our relationship, she is very loyal and worthy of trust.
248 Levesque

She expects to be close by me forever.

She is willing to change for me.

Specialness
I want to be special in her life.
No one could love her as much as I do.
I treat her as very special.
She is the most important person in my life.
I feel that she was meant for me.
She is the person that best understands me.

Love Styles

Eros
We were attracted to each other immediately when we first met.
We have the right physical "chemistry" between us.
We have an intense romantic relationship.
I feel that we were meant for each other.
We became involved rather quickly.
She/he fits my ideal standards of physical good looks.

Ludus
I try to keep her uncertain about my commitment to her.
I think that what she does not know about me will not hurt her.
I have sometimes had to keep two of my girlfriends from finding out about each other.

I can get over love affairs pretty easily and quickly.

W h e n my girlfriend becomes too dependent on me, I want to back off a little.
I enjoy playing the "game of love" with a number of different girls.

Storge
It is hard to say exactly when we went from being friends to being romantically
involved.
Love first requires caring for a while.
I expect to always be friends with the people I date.
Romantic Experience 249

The best kind of love grows out of a long friendship.

My most satisfying dating relationships grew from good friendships.
Love is a deep friendship, not a mysterious, passionate emotion.

Pragma
I consider what a person is going to become in life before I commit myself to her.
It is best to love someone with a similar background to mine.
A main consideration in choosing a girlfriend is how she fits into my family.
An important factor in choosing a girlfriend is how she will be as a mother.
Before getting very involved with someone, I try to figure out what our children
would be like, if we were to have any.
In choosing a partner, I consider how she will for in my future plans.

Mania
If my girlfriend ignores me for a while, I sometimes do stupid things to get her
attention back.
I can't relax if I suspect she is with another guy.
When I am in love, I have trouble concentrating on anything else.
When she doesn't pay attention to me, I feel sick all over.
Sometimes I get so excited about being in love that I can't sleep.
W h e n my love affairs break up, I really get depressed.

Agape
I try to always help her through difficult times.
I would rather suffer myself than let my girlfriend suffer.
I can't be happy unless I put her happiness above my own.
I usually sacrifice my own wishes to let her get her own.
Whatever I own is hers to use as she chooses.
I would put up with a lot for her sake.

REFERENCES

Ammons, P., and Stinnet, N. (1980) The vital marriage: A closer look. Family Relations 29:
37-42.
Antill, J. K., and Cotton, S. (1987). Self disclosure between husband and wives: Its relation-
ships to sex roles and marital happiness. Austral. J. Psychol. 39: 11-24.
250 Levesque

Assh, S. D., and Byers, E. S. (1990). Effects of behavioral exchanges and cognitions on the
relationship satisfaction of dating and married persons. Can. J. Behav. Sci. 22: 223-235.
Bailey, W. C., Hendrick, C., and Hendrick, S. (1987). Relation of sex and gender role to love,
sexual attitudes and self-esteem. Sex Roles 16: 637-648.
Berscheid, E. (1988). Some comments on love's anatomy. In Sternberg, R. J., and Barnes, M.
L. (eds.), The Psychology of Love. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Blyth, D. A., and Foster-Clark, F. S. (1987). Gender differences in perceived intimacy with
different members of adolescents' social networks. Sex Roles 17: 689-718.
Broderick, J. E., and O'Leary, K. D. (1986). Contributions of Affect, Attitudes and Behavior
to Marital Satisfaction. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 54: 514-517.
Camarena, P. M., Sarigiani, P. A., and Peterson, A. C. (1990). Gender-specific pathways to
intimacy in early adolescence. J. Youth Adolesc. 19: 19-32.
Davis, K. E., and LattyoMann, H. (1987). Love styles and relationship quality; A contribution
to validation. J. Social Personal Relat. 4" 409-428.
Davis, K. E., and Todd, M. J. (1982). Friendship and love relationships. In Advances in De-
scriptive Psychology (Vol. 2). JAI Press, New York.
Davis, M. H., and Oathout, H. A. (1987). Maintenance of satisfaction in romantic relation-
ships: Empathy and relational competence. J. Personal. Social PsychoL 53: 397-410.
Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1987). Marriage and verbal intimacy. In Derlega, V. J., and Berg, J. (eds.),
Self-Disclosure: Theory, Research and Therapy. Plenum, New York.
Fletcher, G. J. O., Fincham, F. O., Cramer, L., and Heron, N. (1987). The role of attribution
in the development of dating relationships. J. Personal. Social Psychol. 53: 481-489.
Gilligan, C., Ward, J. V., and Taylor, J. M. (1988). Mapph~g the Moral Domain. Center for
the Study of Gender, Education and Human Development, Cambridge, MA.
Hatfield, E. (1983). What do women and men want out of sex? In Allegier, E. R., and McCor-
mick, N. B. (eds.), Gender Roles and Sexual Behavior: The Changing Boundaries. Mayfield,
Palo Alto, CA.
Hendrick, C., Hendrick, S., and Adler, N. L. (1988). Romantic relationships: Love, satisfaction,
and staying together. J. Personal. Social Psychol. 54: 980-988.
Hendrick, C., and Hendrick, S. (1986). A theory and method of love. J. Personal. Social PSY-
chol. 50: 392-402.
Hendrick, C., and Hendrick, S. (1989). Research on love: Does it measure up? J. Personal.
Social Psychol. 56: 784-794.
Hendrick, C., and Hendrick, S. (1991). Dimensions of love: A sociobiological interpretation.
J. Social Clin. Psychol. 10: 206-230.
Hendrick, C., Hendrick, S., Foote, F. H., and Slapion-Footes, M. J. (1984). Do men and
women love differently. Z Social Personal Relat. 1: 177-195.
Hendrick, S. (1981). Self-disclosure and marital satisfaction. Z Personal. Social PsychoL 40:
1150-1159.
Hendrick, S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. J. Marriage Family 50:
93-98.
Hendrick, S., Hendrick, C., Slapion-Foote, M. J., and Foote, F. H. (1985). Gender differences
in sexual attitudes. J. Personal Social Psychol. 48: 1630-1642.
Hill, J. P., and Lynch, M. E. (1983). The intensification of gender-related role expectations
during early adolescence. In Brooks-Gunn, J., and Peterson, A. P. (eds.), Girls at Puberty:
Biological and Psychological Perspectives. Plenum, New York.
Krokoff, L. J., Gottman, J. M., and Anup, K. (1988). Blue-collar and white-collar marital
interaction and communication orientation. J. Social Personal Relat. 5: 201-221.
Lasswell, T. E., and Lasswell, M. E. (1976). I love you but I'm not in love with you. J. Marriage
Family Counsel. 2: 221-224.
Lee, J. A. (1973). The Colors of Love. New Press, Ontario, Canada.
Lee, J. A. (1988). Love styles. In Sternberg, R. J., and Barnes, M. L. (eds.), The Psychology
of Love. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Levesque, R. J. R. (1990). Adolescents in love: An exploration of adolescent love experiences
across and within five socio-cultural groups. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of Chicago.
Romantic Experience 251

Lewis, R. A., and Spanier. G. B. (1979). Theorizing about the quality and stability of marriage.
In Burr, W. R., Hilt, R., Nye, F. I., and Reiss, I. L. (eds.), Contemporary Theories about
the Fami(y (FoL I). Free Press, New York.
Lewis-Beck, M. S. (1980). Applied regression: An introduction. In Sullivan, J. L. (ed.), Quan-
titative Applications in the Social Sciences (Vol. 22). Sage, Beverley Hills, CA.
Margolin, G., and Wampold, B. (1981). Sequential analysis of conflict and accord in distressed
and nondistressed marital partners. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 49: 554-567.
McClelland, D. C. (1986). Some reflections on the two psychologies of love. J. Personal. 54:
334-353.
Murstein, B. I., and Macdonald, M. G. (1983). The relationship of 'exchange-orientation' and
'commmitment' scales to marriage adjustment. Internat. J. Psychol. 18: 297-311.
Rettig, K. D., and Bubolz, M. M. (1983). Interpersonal resource exchanges as indicators of
quality of marriage. J. Marriage Family 45: 497-509.
Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. J. Personal. Social Psychol. 16: 265-273.
Rubin, Z. (1973). Liking and loving. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.
Rubin, Z. (1990, March). From love to law: A social psychologist's midlife passage. Int. Soc.
Study Personal Relat. Bull., pp. 1-3.
Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and
deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. J. Personal.
Social Psychol. 45: 101-117.
Rusbult, C. E., Johnson, D. J., and Morrow, G. D: (1986). Predicting satisfaction and com-
mitment in adult romantic relationships: An assessment of the generalizability of the in-
vestment model. Social Psychol. Quart. 49: 81-89.
Sandor, D. and Rosenthal, D. A. (1986). Youth's outlooks on love: Is it just a stage or two?
J. Adoles. Res. 1: 199-212.
Sharpley, C. F., and Cross, D. G. (1982). A psychometric evaluation of the Spanier dyadic
adjustment scale. J. Marriage Family 44: 739-741.
Smith, D. A., Vivian, D., and O'Leary, K. D. (1990). Longitudinal prediction of marital discord
from premarital expressions of affect. J. Consult. Clin. PsychoL 58: 790-798.
Snyder, D. K. (1979). Multidimensional assessment of marital satisfaction. J. Marriage Family
41" 813-823.
Snyder, M., Simpson, J. A., and Gangestad, S. (1986). Personality and sexual relations. J.
Personal. Social PsychoL 51: 181-190.
Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of
marriage and similar dyads. J. Marriage Family 38: 15-38.
Steck, L., Levitan, D., McLane, D., and Kelley, H. H. (1982). Care, need and conceptions of
love. J. Personal. Social Psychol. 47: 312-329.
Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. J. Psychol. Rev. 93: 119-185.
Surra, C. A., and Longstreth, M. (1990). Similarity of outcomes, interdependence, and conflict
in dating relationships. J. Personal. Social Psychol. 59: 501-516.
Swensen, C. H., and Trahaug, G. (1985). Commitment and the long-term marriage relation-
ship. J. Marriage Family 47: 939-945.
White, K. W., Speisman, J. C., Jackson, D., Bartis, S., and Costos, D. (1986). Intimacy maturity
and its correlates in young married couples. J. Personal. Social Psychol. 50: 152-162.
Whitley, B. E. (1988). The relation of gender-role orientation to sexual experience among
college students. Sex Roles 19: 619-638.