Sternberg's Theory of Love

In 1986, psychologist Robert Sternberg, a professor at Yale University, published a paper in the *Psychological Review* entitled “A Triangular Theory of Love.” His theory proposed a new conceptualization to understand love as a construct. He identified three primary components of love-intimacy, passion, and decision/commitment. He defined intimacy as feelings of “closeness, connectedness, and bondedness” (p.119). In other words, intimacy is what most often establishes emotional investment in a relationship. Passion is about the drive for romance, including physical attraction and sexual consummation. Passion is typically the motivation for arousal in a close relationship. The third aspect, decision/commitment, was said to involve both the short-term decision that one person loves the other and the long-term commitment to foster and maintain that love for each other.

Sternberg proposed that the amount of love experienced in a close relationship was dependent upon the strength of each of these three components but also each components’ strength relative to each other. Dependent upon what components are stronger, this leads to different types of close relationships. Sternberg identified eight possible relationship types that were dependent upon what combination of components were present or absent. At one extreme, non-love is the absence of intimacy, passion, and decision/commitment, while consummate love is the presence of all three areas. Other examples represented ‘in between’ included liking, which is only the presence of intimacy and the absence of passion and decision/commitment, while romantic love is when intimacy and passion are present and decision/commitment is not.

To understand the Triangular Theory of love, each of the three components’ unique courses require explanation. The basis for how intimacy plays out is based on Berscheid (1983)’s theory of emotion in close relationships (Berscheid, 1983). Based on this theory, intimacy typically begins at a low level. However, as each person gets to the know the other, one can predict the other person’s actions with more accuracy. This allows for fewer hiccups in interactions and increased emotionality as each person better understands how their partner may react to something. Eventually, intimacy wanes off as time progresses and it can be challenging to differentiate whether the two people are still in a close relationship.

The theorized course that passion follows arousal comes from Solomon (1980)’s opponent-process theory of acquired motivation. Passion has been found to be the least stable and most difficult of the three domains to predict. The concept is that arousal almost instantaneously increases and peaks when one person is introduced to the other. Upon arousal’s peak, passion initiates and remains at a relatively constant level as arousal decreases. Eventually, both arousal and passion reach an equilibrium. Therefore, if a person were to leave the relationship, the positive ‘passion’ force would decrease although arousal, which becomes the opposing negative force, would still result in feeling the absence of the partner who left. The final component of Sternberg’s Triangular Theory, decision/commitment, begins at zero, but its levels gradually increase upon the couple getting to know each other. Eventually, there will be a more rapid increase in decision/commitment, although in a healthy, long-term relationship, this will eventually level off.

These three components in the Triangular Theory can vary in their relative weight or importance in a given triangle. While an epitomized triangle for a close, loving, relationship would include an equal balance of passion, intimacy, and decision/commitment, this may not always be the case. When passion is predominant, physical attraction is a superior force in the relationship. However, if intimacy is prioritized over the other two components, the relationship will be more akin to a close friendship as opposed to a romantic relationship. Finally, when decision/commitment is of primary focus, the two people in the relationship are highly devoted to one another. In this situation, passion and/or intimacy have disappeared over time or were not present to begin with. Regardless of which components are emphasized, this will result in the triangle no longer being equal on each side but instead, the triangle will be skewed in a given direction in favor of the emphasized aspect(s).

Each person entering a relationship conceptualizes what Sternberg termed as their own version of an ‘ideal’ triangle. This triangle is what the person has in mind (i.e. expectations) regarding what aspects should be accentuated in the relationship, which results in the triangle’s shape. In addition, Sternberg proposed that each relationship also has a ‘real’ triangle. He concluded the more overlap there is between the ideal and real triangles, the greater satisfaction there would be in the relationship. Since there are two people in a relationship, it is also important that each person’s triangle aligns with their partner’s. Conflicts are more likely to arise if, for example, one person’s ideal relationship involves less intimacy while another person places an emphasis on intimacy.

A final point Sternberg makes is that while each person theoretically knows what they consider important to them in the relationship, it is crucial for them to make those areas known to their partner. Therefore, there are specific acts or behaviors they can engage in to express their emphasis on each of the three areas. Examples for intimacy include sharing feelings and belongings, while passion is likely to include physical touch, kissing, and sex. Finally, methods to express decision/commitment are engaging in fidelity, marriage, and staying committed to the relationship, even through difficult times.

Construct validation of this theory was evidenced in a research study examining the presence of the three areas (intimacy, passion, decision/commitment) across different types of relationships; these included parents, siblings, same-sex best friends, and spouses/lovers. Participants completed different self-report scales assessing liking and loving. The primary outcome was findings of significant differences in which combinations of the three areas were emphasized, depending on the type of relationship, providing empirical support for the theory.

**Further Reading:**

1. (2009) "Love Unveiled: Teenage Love Within the Context of Sternberg's Triangular Theory of Love," Intuition: The BYU Undergraduate Journal of Psychology: Vol. 5 : Iss. 1 , Article 5. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/intuition/vol5/iss1/5
2. Brehm, J. W. (1966). *A theory of psychological reactance.* New York: Academic Press.
3. Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. *Psychological Review, 93*(2), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.119

**References:**

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Construct validation of a triangular love scale. *European Journal of Social Psychology*, *27*(3), 313-335. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199705)27:3<313::AID-EJSP824>3.0.CO;2-4
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. *Psychological Review*, *93*(2), 119-135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.119
3. ↑ Berscheid, E. (1983). Emotion. In H. H. Kelley, E. Berscheid, A. Christensen, J. H. Harvey, T. L., Huston, G. Levinger, E. McClintock, L. A. Peplau, & D. R. Peterson (Eds.), *Close relationships* (pp. 110–168). Freeman.
4. ↑ Solomon, R. L. (1980). The opponent-process theory of acquired motivation: The costs of pleasure and the benefits of pain. *American Psychologist, 35*(8), 691–712. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.35.8.691
5. ↑ Anderson, J. W. (2016). *The Wiley Blackwell* *encyclopedia of family studies*. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119085621.wbefs058