International Journal of Behavioral Development

http://jbd.sagepub.com/

Perceptions of love across the lifespan: Differences in passion, intimacy, and commitment
Sindy R. Sumter, Patti M. Valkenburg and Jochen Peter
International Journal of Behavioral Development 2013 37: 417 originally published online 17 July 2013
DOI: 10.1177/0165025413492486

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jbd.sagepub.com/content/37/5/417

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development

Additional services and information for International Journal of Behavioral Development can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jbd.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jbd.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Sep 4, 2013

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Jul 17, 2013

What is This?

Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at GEORGE MASON UNIV on June 8, 2014

 International Journal of
Behavioral Development
Perceptions of love across the lifespan: 37(5) 417–427
ª The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
Differences in passion, intimacy, and sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0165025413492486
commitment ijbd.sagepub.com

Sindy R. Sumter,1 Patti M. Valkenburg,1 and Jochen Peter1

Abstract
This study investigated perceptions of love across the lifespan using Sternberg’s triangular theory of love, which distinguishes between
passion, intimacy, and commitment. The study aimed to (a) investigate the psychometric properties of the short Triangular Love Scale
(TLS-short) in adolescents and adults (see Appendix), and (b) track age and gender differences in the three love components of the
TLS-short in a sample of 12- to 88-year-olds (N ¼ 2791). The three-factor structure of the TLS-short was confirmed in both the adolescent
and adult sample. Adolescents (12–17 years) reported lower levels of all love components compared to young adults (18–30 years). Late
adults (50þ) reported lower levels of passion and intimacy, but similar levels of commitment compared to young (18–30 years) and middle
adults (30–50 years). Gender differences in the perceptions of all three love components were present but less sizeable than suggested in
popular accounts and earlier academic research.

Keywords
age differences, gender differences, lifespan, love, romantic relationships

Love is an integral part of the human experience. The trials and (50þ). These age groups have been used in previous studies on ado-
tribulations associated with love have been documented widely in lescence (e.g. Steinberg, Cauffman, Woolard, Graham, & Banich,
popular culture, self-help books, and academic research (e.g. 2009) and adulthood (e.g. McCrae et al., 1999; Tanner, Arnett, &
Schoenfeld, Bredow, & Huston, 2012). The presence or absence Leis, 2009).
of love can have strong effects on people’s relationship satisfaction
(e.g. Fehr, 2001; Meeks, Hendrick, & Hendrick, 1998) and their
overall mental well-being (Sprecher & Fehr, 2006). Although ado- Triangular theory of love: Passion, intimacy,
lescence is the time that romantic love first develops (Collins, and commitment
2003), little is known about individual perceptions of love among
Several models and instruments are available to assess individual
boys and girls during and after adolescence. To better understand
perceptions of love (e.g. Hatfield & Rapson, 1994; Hendrick &
the development of romantic relationships, it is crucial to investi-
Hendrick, 1986; Hendrick & Hendrick, 2002; Rubin, 1970; Stern-
gate how boys and girls perceive love in those first romantic
berg, 1986). In the current study, we adopted Sternberg’s (1986,
relationships, and how these perceptions compare to the love per-
1997) Triangular Theory of Love. The Triangular Theory of Love
ceptions of men and women in the later stages of the lifespan. To
proposes that the three components of love – passion, intimacy and
investigate age and gender differences in love perceptions from a
commitment – are motivational needs that are present in a relation-
lifespan perspective is the main aim of the current study.
ship to different degrees (Sternberg, 1986, 1997). The components
Research on individual perceptions of love has mainly focused on
capture the way people interact with and feel towards their current,
adults (e.g. Berscheid, 2010; Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Hendrick &
past, or future romantic partner. Passion reflects the physical attrac-
Hendrick, 1986; Langeslag, Muris, & Franken, 2012; Neto, 2012;
tion and arousal between romantic partners, and a need for physical
Rubin, 1970; Sternberg, 1986). Perceptions of love during adoles-
proximity. Intimacy encompasses feelings of mutual trust and con-
cence have only been a topic of interest for about a decade (for a
nectedness within a romantic relationship. These feelings allow part-
review see: Collins, Welsh, & Furman, 2009). However, in the
ners to engage in mutual self-disclosure, and to share their secrets
earliest studies on love, researchers already documented that love
and most intimate feelings with each other. Finally, commitment
does not only change as a relationship progresses, but that it is also
refers to the conception or decision that the current relationship will
experienced and expressed differently by different age groups (e.g.
last.
Montgomery & Sorell, 1997; Beigel, 1951; Knox, 1970; Winch,
1952). To our knowledge, a study on lifespan developmental differ-
ences in these perceptions is still lacking. In the current study we 1
University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
investigated age differences in perceptions of love among 12- to
88-year-olds. More specifically, we compared perceptions of love Corresponding author:
among males and females in six developmental periods: early (12– Sindy R. Sumter, Amsterdam School of Communication Research/ASCoR,
13 years), middle (14–15 years), and late adolescence (16–17 years), Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
and young (18–29 years), middle (30–49 years), and late adulthood Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at GEORGE MASON UNIV on June 8, 2014

418 International Journal of Behavioral Development 37(5)

Different combinations of the three love components are possi- passion. As puberty brings about strong motivational changes,
ble and result in several so-called love styles (Sternberg, 1997). adolescents become strongly driven by their passions and act more
Successful and satisfying romantic relationships are characterized impulsively in social situations (Dahl, 2004). Based on this research,
by balanced levels of passion, intimacy, and commitment (Stern- we expect that during adolescence passion will increase significantly,
berg, 1997). In addition, the three love components are dependent and will be more salient than intimacy and commitment. Further-
on relationship status, that is, being in or out of a relationship, and more, passion may function as a developmental precursor of inti-
they follow a certain sequence within a relationship. For example, macy and commitment during adolescence, in the same way as
according to Sternberg (1997), the early stages of a relationship are passion is a temporal precursor of intimacy and commitment in
characterized primarily by passion. After this stage, intimacy and romantic relationships (Connolly & Goldberg, 1999).
commitment are expected to increase. Recently, some have argued Empirical studies of age differences in passion during adoles-
that although intimacy and commitment become more important cence show mixed results. Some studies reported no age differences
during the advanced stages of a relationship, this does not necessa- (e.g. Shulman & Scharf, 2000), others studies reported a decrease
rily occur at the expense of passion (Acevedo & Aron, 2009). with age (e.g. Connolly, Craig, Goldberg, & Pepler, 1999; Galotti,
Rather, when relationships mature all love components may Kozberg, & Appleman, 1990), and again others an increase with
increase and, as a result, strengthen the relationship. age (e.g. Ha, Overbeek, de Greef, Scholte, & Engels, 2010).
All three components of love can be assessed with the Triangu- Whereas adolescence is considered to be a time when passions
lar Love Scale (TLS; e.g. Lemieux & Hale, 1999; Sternberg, 1997). are ignited (Dahl, 2004), adulthood is related to a reduction of
Construct validity of the TLS is acceptable. The TLS is related to physiological arousal and consequently a time when passions are
other measures of love and predictive of relationship satisfaction trimmed down (Carstensen & Charles, 1999). These physiological
(e.g. Lemieux & Hale, 1999; Sternberg, 1997). The most recent changes that occur throughout adulthood suggest that older adults
version of the TLS is available for adults and adolescents, which report lower levels of passion than younger adults. In line with this
allows us to use the same measure for both our adolescent and adult expectation, most studies show that passion becomes less prominent
samples (Lemieux & Hale, 1999; Overbeek et al., 2007). during adulthood. However, this decrease in passion is small (e.g.
Ahmetoglu et al., 2010). For instance, older women and men still
reported moderate to high levels of passionate (Hatfield et al.,
Age and perception of love: A lifespan 1984) and erotic love (Grote & Frieze, 1998), even though these
perspective levels were slightly lower than during earlier stages of development.

We adopted a lifespan approach to formulate our expectations

regarding age differences in love. Our lifespan approach to love Intimacy
perceptions follows the tradition of lifespan approaches to social
relationships in general (e.g. Fingerman & Lang, 2004; Luong, Intimacy is a primary developmental milestone during adolescence
Charles, & Fingerman, 2011). Lifespan psychologists argue that age and advances in intimacy during this period are observed in many
differences in behavior and perceptions are due to various variables, studies (Buhrmester & Furman, 1987). In line with these findings,
including development, motivational changes, life experiences, and the majority of studies on love seem to support increases in self-
changes in social context (e.g. Fingerman & Lang, 2004). Lifespan reported intimacy in romantic relationships during adolescence
studies have shown, for example, that, in comparison to younger (e.g. Connolly et al., 1999; Ha et al., 2010).
adults, older adults are more satisfied with their social relationships. Following Socioemotional Selectivity Theory (SST), changes in
Using the Socioemotional Selectivity Theory (Carstensen, Isaaco- individuals’ temporal horizon predict that, in later stages of adult-
witz, & Charles, 1999), lifespan psychologists argue that this hood, romantic relationships grow more intimate (Luong, Charles,
increase in relationship satisfaction is due to changes in people’s & Fingerman, 2011). However, studies among adults reported no
temporal horizon (Luong, Charles, & Fingerman, 2011). When changes or very little change in self-reported intimacy (e.g. Ahme-
adults grow older, they are less concerned with the future and more toglu et al., 2010; Falconi & Mullet, 2003). Thus, we expect that
focused on the present. Consequently, they spend more time and during adolescence age differences will be most pronounced, with
effort in fewer relationships, which may enhance perceptions of early adolescents reporting lower levels of intimacy than late
intimacy and commitment in this stage of life. adolescents. Furthermore, age differences in intimacy from emer-
In the tradition of the lifespan approach, authors who study love ging adulthood onwards are expected to be limited.
among adults have also stressed that during different developmental
stages new values, responsibilities and experiences emerge, and
these affect how individuals experience love during the early and Commitment
later stages of adulthood (Neto, 2012). The lifespan approach seems The majority of studies provide evidence for an increase in commit-
to focus on changes in adulthood, but it can also be used to better ment during adolescence that continues into adulthood (e.g. Ahmeto-
understand changes during adolescence. glu et al., 2010; Falconi & Mullet, 2003; Ha et al., 2010; but for
exceptions, see Connolly et al., 1999; Shulman & Scharf, 2000). The
increase in commitment during adolescence follows several develop-
Empirical evidence for age differences in mental transitions. Adolescents spend less time with their parents,
love perceptions while relationships with peers and romantic partners become more
central. Transient non-kin relationships are replaced with more stable
Passion
non-kin relationships, and adolescents slowly adopt more adult-like
Adolescence is characterized by biological and psychosocial roles (Collins, 1997). These developments are expected to result in
changes that may be of importance to adolescents’ experience of higher levels of commitment. At the same time, in today’s society

Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at GEORGE MASON UNIV on June 8, 2014

Sumter et al. 419

adoption of adult roles and responsibilities is postponed (Arnett, expressions of intimacy (Underwood & Rosen, 2009; Connolly
2000), so that we expect young adults to still report lower levels of et al., 1999).
commitment than middle and late adults. An explanation for an
increase in commitment during adulthood is that older adults experi-
ence their romantic relationships as more intimate (see SST; Luong, Empirical evidence for gender differences in
Charles, & Fingerman, 2011),
love perceptions
Conclusion Passion
Up to now, studies that investigated love and romantic relationships The majority of studies report no gender difference in passion among
focused on one specific age group or did not report age differences adolescents (e.g. Connolly et al., 1999; Ha et al., 2010; Levesque,
in their sample (e.g. Feiring, 1996; Gao, 2001; Levesque, 1993; 1993; Shulman & Scharf, 2000) and adults (e.g. Falconi & Mullet,
Overbeek, Ha, Scholte, de Kemp, & Engels, 2007). Furthermore, 2003; Gao, 2001; Hatfield & Sprecher, 1986). In the few studies that
those studies that did report age differences in passion, intimacy, did report a gender difference in passion, men reported more passion
and/or commitment showed mixed results. Thus, based on these than women (e.g. Ahmetoglu et al., 2010; Feiring, 1996).
studies no definite conclusions can be drawn about age differences
in the components of love. However, based on well-documented Intimacy
developmental changes, motivational changes and changes in social
context, we can come up with some preliminary hypotheses. We In line with gender stereotypical conceptions, women generally
expect age differences in all love components during adolescence, report higher levels of intimacy than men, but according to a meta-
with older adolescents reporting higher levels of passion, intimacy, analysis of Dindia and Allen (1992) this gender difference is small.
and commitment than younger adolescents. In addition, we expect Some recent studies show that girls and women report slightly higher
modest age differences during adulthood, with adults in later stages levels of intimacy than men during adolescence (e.g. Shulman,
of their lives reporting less passion, but more intimacy, and commit- Walsh, Weisman, & Schelyer, 2009) and adulthood (e.g. Ahmetoglu
ment than younger adults. et al., 2010), whereas other studies report no such gender differences
(e.g. Connolly et al., 1999; Gao, 2001; Ha et al., 2010).

Gender and perceptions of love: A social Commitment

cultural perspective With reference to commitment, the findings have been most incon-
Perceptions of love are not only expected to differ across the sistent. Some studies reported no gender differences in commitment
lifespan, but also between males and females. Popular media often (e.g. Duffy & Rusbult, 1986; Gao, 2001). When gender differences
emphasize or sometimes even exaggerate the differences between were observed, some studies found men to report more commitment
males and females in how they act in love relationships and how (e.g. Ahmetoglu et al., 2010; Reedy, Birren, & Schaie, 1981),
they value love (Signorella & Cooper, 2011). For instance, the whereas others showed that women reported more commitment
website of Psychology Today (Formica, 2009) reports: ‘Men and (e.g. Lemieux & Hale, 1999; Duffy & Rusbult, 1986).
women . . . tend to approach relationships from vastly different
points of reference. It is no secret that men and women operate
Conclusion
differently, especially in terms of emotionality.’
Several social-cultural theories explain why males and females Surprisingly, the evidence for gender differences in the three love
may differ in reported perceptions of love (e.g. Hendrick & components are mixed both during adolescence and adulthood. Most
Hendrick, 2002). These accounts are in line with theories that pre- studies provide little evidence for gender differences (e.g. Connolly
dict gender differences in behavior in general (Deaux & Major, et al., 1999; Ha et al., 2010; Levesque, 1993; Seiffge-Krenke, 2003).
1987). For example, the socio-cultural perspective of Schoenfeld, When gender differences are observed, studies seem to support the
Bredow, and Huston (2012) argues that traditional gender roles idea that men report higher levels of passion, lower levels of intimacy
determine how men and women should behave, and how they expe- and similar levels of commitment compared to women. However, in
rience romantic relationships. Women are stereotypically expected more recent studies gender differences are even less robust than in
to be more emotionally expressive, whereas men are expected to earlier ones (e.g. Gao, 2001; Ha et al., 2010).
value sexual intimacy over emotional intimacy (Schoenfeld et al., This small and inconsistent evidence may be due to a gradual
2012). Similarly, the two-cultures perspective (Maccoby, 1998), a decrease of gender differences in today’s society (Oliver & Hyde,
theory of gender differences in adolescent peer relations, assumes 1993). However, this assumption has not been verified. Moreover,
that boys and girls experience their romantic relationships although gender differences may be small on the aggregate, they
differently because they are socialized in gender-segregated peer may vary across different lifespan stages. Hardly any of the previ-
groups. Before adolescents engage in romantic relationships, they ous studies have investigated how gender interacts with age. This is
spend most of their childhood interacting with same-sex rather an important omission, because gender differences in interpersonal
than cross-sex peers (e.g. Rose & Rudolph, 2006). These gender- behaviors are often more obvious during mid- to late adolescence
segregated experiences reinforce gender differences and result in (Cyranowski & Frank, 2000). Thus, it is likely that gender differ-
different expectations about romantic relationships between the ences in love’s components will be more consistent when we take
genders (Maccoby, 1998). As a result, girls are more focused on into account different developmental stages. To investigate these
self-disclosure and intimacy, whereas boys are focused less on interactions between gender and age is an important aim of the
self-disclosure and more on sexuality and nonverbal and indirect present study.

Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at GEORGE MASON UNIV on June 8, 2014

420 International Journal of Behavioral Development 37(5)

Current study Table 1. Percentage of participants with different relationship statuses by

age group.
The current study investigated the three components of love distin-
guished by Sternberg (i.e. passion, intimacy, and commitment) Relationship Status
among a sample of early, middle, and late adolescents, and among
Currently Has been Never
young, middle, and late adults. The three components of love were
Age groups involved involved involved
assessed with a short version of the recently developed Triangular
Love Scale for Adolescents, which has been validated for youth aged Early adolescence 8.47% 42.15% 49.38%
10 to 18 (Overbeek et al., 2007). First, we assessed the factor struc- Middle 14.36% 48.68% 36.96%
ture and psychometric properties of the shortened Triangular Love adolescence
Scale in an adolescent and adult sample. Second, we investigated age Late adolescence 26.69% 42.74% 30.57%
and gender differences in self-reported passion, intimacy, and com- Young adulthood 60.82% 9.36% 29.82%
mitment with reference to a romantic relationship (Overbeek et al., Middle adulthood 82.21% 8.41% 9.38%
Late adulthood 73.74% 21.69% 4.57%
2007). We paid special attention to the moderating role of relation-
ship status – overall and in the different age gender groups. After all,
perceptions of love may change as a romantic relationship progresses group included all adults between 18 and 29 years, and reflected
(Rusbult, Olsen, Davis, & Hannon, 2001). In addition, adolescents young adulthood (N ¼ 171). The second and third adult group
may score lower on all three components of love merely because they reflected middle (30–49 years; N ¼ 416) and late adulthood
are not romantically involved. To assess the role of relationship sta- (50þ; N ¼ 439).
tus, we investigated whether and to what extent the age and gender
effects are moderated by relationship status. Relationship status. All participants were assigned to one of three
groups that reflected their romantic history and current relationship
status. A distinction was made between participants who (1) were
Method currently romantically involved, (2) were not romantically involved
Participants and procedure but had been before, or (3) had never been romantically involved.
The age by relationship status distribution can be found in Table 1.
The current data were collected through an online survey among a
representative sample of 1765 Dutch adolescents (12- to 17-year- Triangular love scale. We used a short version of the Dutch Trian-
olds) and 1026 Dutch adults (18- to 88-year-olds) in May and June gular Love Scale for Adolescents to measure self-reported passion,
2008. Sampling and fieldwork were conducted by Veldkamp, the intimacy, and commitment in a relationship (Overbeek et al., 2007).
largest Dutch survey research institute. Respondents were ran- This adolescent version was adapted from Lemieux and Hale’s Tri-
domly selected from an existing nationally representative online angular Love Scale (1999). The items are adapted for adolescents,
panel administered by Veldkamp, which consists of more than while at the same time keeping the content identical. Thus, all items
110,000 participants. In contrast to online convenience samples are expected to be relevant to both adolescents and adults. Negatively
with their danger of self-selection biases, the pool of potential phrased items were rewritten and some words were simplified.
respondents was originally sampled randomly from the Dutch pop- Overbeek et al. (2007) validated the scale for an adolescent
ulation and is continuously updated. Out of this pool, 2092 adoles- sample. A Confirmatory Factor Analysis conducted by Overbeek
cents and 1267 adults were randomly contacted. A response rate of et al. provided support for a three-factor solution and all scales
84% for the adolescent and of 81% for the adult sample was showed good reliability (Cronbach’s alpha  .80). Furthermore, all
yielded. Forty-nine percent of the adolescents and 51% of the adults components were positively related to adolescents’ satisfaction
were female. Most of the adolescents (81%) lived with two parents with their romantic relationships and length of their relationship.
(in line with official Dutch statistics: CBS, 2009). Participants came However, Overbeek et al. reported that some items had lower factor
from urban as well as rural regions all over the Netherlands. loadings than expected. These items might have been more relevant
Educational levels were equally distributed across the age groups. for romantic relationships during adulthood than adolescence. As a
Parental consent for participation of respondents younger than 18 result, we used the four items with highest factor loadings in Over-
years was obtained from the parents before the survey was fielded. At beek et al.’s study for each subscale (see Table 2 for the exact
the beginning of the online survey, both adolescent and adult partici- items). The wording of the items was dependent on the relationship
pants were asked for informed consent. We asked participants to fill in status of the participant (i.e. never been in a romantic relationship,
the questionnaire in privacy and emphasized that their answers would one or more past romantic relationships, or currently in a romantic
be analyzed only by the principal investigators. Participants were also relationship). All three versions of the scale can be found at
informed that they could stop at any time if they wished. Completing www.ccam-ascor.nl. Responses to the 12 items ranged from 1 (¼
the questionnaire took about 20 minutes. Participants received a 5€ very untrue) to 5 (¼ very true).
coupon (approx. 7 USD) for their participation. Before the beginning
of the study, institutional approval was received.
Results
Measures Psychometric properties of the triangular love scale –
short
Age. Adolescents were divided into three age groups to reflect the
developmental stages of early (12–13 years; N ¼ 568), middle To investigate the dimensional structure of the short Triangular
(14–15 years; N ¼ 606), and late adolescence (16–17 years; N ¼ Love Scale (TLS-short), exploratory factor analyses with Varimax
591). Adults were also separated into three age groups. The first rotation were performed for the two age groups (adolescents versus

Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at GEORGE MASON UNIV on June 8, 2014

Sumter et al. 421

Table 2. Varimax-rotated factor loadings of the triangular love scale items for adolescents and adults.

Adolescents Adults

Items Passion Intimacy Commitment Passion Intimacy Commitment

1 I feel a strong attraction to my partner (passion-1) .70 .73

2 I feel aroused by my partner (passion-2) .89 .86
3 I find my partner sexually attractive (passion-4) .88 .88
4 My partner and I clearly show each other our love (passion-5) .71 .70 .41
5 My partner and I always tell each other personal things (intimacy-1) .79 .78
6 I tell my partner everything (intimacy-2) .83 .84
7 My partner and I tell each other all our secrets (intimacy-3) .83 .85
8 My partner understands how I feel (intimacy-5) .76 .70
9 I want my relationship to be never-ending (commitment-2) .88 .86
10 I never want to have another partner (commitment-4) .88 .84
11 I want my relationship with my partner to last forever (commitment-5) .90 .86
12 I am rather with partner than with anyone else (commitment-6) .65 .74
Cronbach’s Alpha .89 .88 .92 .92 .91 .93

Note. The three versions of the triangular love scale can be requested from the first author or found at www.ccam-ascor.nl. References to original items used by
Overbeek et al. (2007) are presented in parentheses.

adults) separately. The scree plot indicated a three-factor solution Table 3. Mean levels of love styles by age by gender (standard deviations in
explaining 77.7% of the variance in total among the adolescent parentheses).
sample and 81.2% among the adult sample. The factor loadings for
Men Women All
each subscale are presented in Table 1. Only substantial loadings
(above .40) are presented in Table 2. None of the subscales had Whole sample Passion 3.82 (0.86) 3.69 (0.92) 3.76 (0.90)
substantial secondary loadings. Finally, all subscales showed good Intimacy 3.64 (0.82) 3.70 (0.83) 3.67 (0.82)
reliability with Cronbach’s alphas above .88 for all subscales in Commitment 3.69 (0.99) 3.77 (1.01) 3.73 (1.00)
both the adolescent and adult sample (see Table 2). The interscale Early adolescents Passion 3.16 (0.90) 3.07 (0.94) 3.12 (0.92)
correlations ranged between .58 and .64. Intimacy 3.29 (0.81) 3.44 (0.84) 3.37 (0.83)
To test whether love’s components differed from each other, Commitment 3.13 (1.00) 3.22 (1.00) 3.18 (1.00)
paired sample t-tests were performed. These tests showed that Middle adolescents Passion 3.71 (0.76) 3.48 (0.92) 3.59 (0.85)
Intimacy 3.49 (0.76) 3.68 (0.79) 3.58 (0.78)
among adults all love components were significantly different from
Commitment 3.39 (0.93) 3.43 (1.01) 3.41 (0.97)
each other, p’s < .001. Mean levels of commitment (M ¼ 4.26, SD Late adolescents Passion 4.06 (0.71) 3.97 (0.71) 4.02 (0.71)
¼ 0.81) were highest followed by passion (M ¼ 4.06, SD ¼ 0.79) Intimacy 3.71 (0.70) 3.76 (0.72) 3.74 (0.71)
and intimacy (M ¼ 3.84, SD ¼ 0.86). Adolescents reported similar Commitment 3.60 (0.86) 3.74 (0.90) 3.67 (0.88)
levels of passion (M ¼ 3.58, SD ¼ 0.91) and intimacy (M ¼ 3.57, Young adults Passion 4.26 (0.71) 4.36 (0.70) 4.33 (0.70)
SD ¼ 0.79), which were both higher than commitment (M ¼ 3.42, Intimacy 3.87 (0.80) 4.12 (0.75) 4.03 (0.77)
SD ¼ 0.97, p’s < .001). Commitment 4.23 (0.77) 4.37 (0.81) 4.32 (0.79)
Middle adults Passion 4.21 (0.70) 4.06 (0.79) 4.14 (0.74)
Intimacy 3.91 (0.83) 3.87 (0.80) 3.89 (0.82)
Age and gender differences in love styles Commitment 4.29 (0.77) 4.29 (0.83) 4.29 (0.79)
Late adults Passion 4.00 (0.79) 3.74 (0.83) 3.87 (0.82)
We conducted a Repeated Measures MANOVA with love included Intimacy 3.87 (0.86) 3.61 (0.93) 3.74 (0.91)
as a within-subject variable (i.e. passion, intimacy, and commit- Commitment 4.20 (0.85) 4.21 (0.81) 4.21 (0.83)
ment). Age (1 ¼ early adolescence, 2 ¼ middle adolescence, 3 ¼ late
adolescence, 4 ¼ young adulthood, 5 ¼ middle adulthood, 6 ¼ late
adulthood), gender (0 ¼ men, 1 ¼ women), and relationship status
The interaction between love and age indicates that age differ-
(1 ¼ currently involved, 2 ¼ currently not involved, 3 ¼ never
ences were different for the three love components. Because the
involved) were included as between-subjects variables. Multivariate
main aim of the current paper was to study the lifespan pattern of
statistics were significant for Love, Wilks’L ¼ .97, F(2, 2753) ¼
love’s components, we conducted follow-up analyses for the three
37.33, p < .001, partial eta squared (Zp2) ¼ .026, Love  Age,
love components separately. Follow-up univariate analyses
Wilks’L ¼ .94, F(10, 5506) ¼ 18.19, p < .001, Zp2 ¼ .032, Love
included age, gender, and relationship status as independent vari-
 Gender, Wilks’L ¼ .99, F(2, 2753) ¼ 11.84, p < .001, Zp2 ¼
ables. Table 3 presents the means and standard deviations of all
.009, and Love  Relationship Status, Wilks’L ¼ .99, F(4, 5506)
love components by age, gender and relationship status.
¼ 5.36, p < .001, Zp2 ¼ .004. In addition, two three-way interactions
were significant, Love  Age  Gender, Wilks’L ¼ .99, F(10, 5506)
¼ 3.07, p < .01, Zp2 ¼ .006, and Love  Age  Relationship Status,
Passion
Wilks’L ¼ .98, F(20, 5506) ¼ 3.34, p < .001, Zp2 ¼ .010. The
interaction Love  Gender  Relationship Status and the four-way We found significant effects for age, gender and relationship status,
interaction Love  Age  Gender  Relationship Status were not and the interaction age by relationship status. A main effect was
significant. observed for age, F(5, 2754) ¼ 54.96, p < .001, Zp2 ¼ .091. Post

Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at GEORGE MASON UNIV on June 8, 2014

422 International Journal of Behavioral Development 37(5)

5 Currently involved 5 Currently involved

Has been involved Has been involved
Never involved Never involved
4,5 4,5
Mean level of passion

Mean level of intimacy

4 4

3,5 3,5

3
3

2,5
12-13 14-15 16-17 18-29 30-50 50+ years 2,5
years years years years years 12-13 14-15 16-17 18-29 30-50 50+ years
years years years years years
age groups
age groups
Figure 1. Age and relationship status differences in mean levels of passion
(value range 1 ¼ not true at all to 5 ¼ very true). Figure 2. Age and relationship status differences in mean levels of intimacy
(value range 1 ¼ not true at all to 5 ¼ very true).

hoc tests (Bonferroni corrected) revealed that in the adolescent

sample all age groups differed significantly from each other (ps < We found no gender main effect, F(1, 2754) ¼ 0.00, but a sig-
.05), with the older adolescents reporting more passion. Hence, nificant Age  Gender interaction, F(5, 2754) ¼ 3.34, p < .01, Zp2
middle adolescents reported higher levels of passion than early ado- ¼ .006. Follow-up planned contrasts showed that in comparison to
lescents, and late adolescents reported higher levels of passion than men, women reported more intimacy in age group 1 (early adoles-
middle adolescents. Young adults reported more passion than all cence), 2 (middle adolescence), and 4 (young adulthood), and less
other age groups. Middle and late adults reported lower levels of intimacy in age group 6 (late adulthood). In age groups 3 (late ado-
passion compared to young adults, similar levels compared to late lescence) and 5 (middle adulthood) no significant differences
adolescents, and higher levels compared to early and middle adoles- between men and women were found (see Table 3).
cents (see Table 3). A main effect was also observed for gender, A main effect was also observed for relationship status, F(2,
which indicated that men reported higher levels of passion than 2754) ¼ 71.34, p < .001, Zp2 ¼ .049; all three groups differed
women did, F(1, 2754) ¼ 18.44, p < .001, Zp2 ¼ .007. The age significantly from each other (ps < .001). Participants who were
by gender interaction was not significant, F(5, 2754) ¼ 0.86, ns. currently involved reported the most intimacy and those who had
This means that in all age groups, men reported more passion that been involved in the past reported the least intimacy. Finally, the
women. Age  Relationship Status was significant, F(10, 2754) ¼ 5.02,
A main effect was also observed for relationship status, p < .001, Zp2 ¼ .018. Among the participants who had never been
F(2, 2754) ¼ 59.85, p < .001, Zp2 ¼ .042; all three groups differed romantically involved age differences were limited; the older adults
significantly from each other (ps < .001). Participants who were reported less intimacy than the adolescents and young adults (see
currently involved reported the most passion and those who had Figure 2). Among participants who had been romantically involved
been involved earlier reported the least passion. Finally, the Age or were currently involved the overall pattern as discussed above
 Relationship Status was significant, F(10, 2754) ¼ 4.86, p < was observed, with young adults reporting more intimacy than both
.001, Zp2 ¼ .017 (see Figure 1). Among participants who had never the early adolescents and the late adults.
been romantically involved, age differences were limited; early
adolescents reported less passion than all other age groups. Among
participants who had been involved or were currently involved in a Commitment
relationship, the overall pattern as discussed above was observed We found significant effects for age, relationship status, and the
with young adults reporting the highest level of passion. interactions age by relationship status and age by gender by rela-
tionship status. The main effect of age was significant for commit-
ment, F(5, 2754) ¼ 26.59, p < .001, Zp2 ¼ .046. Post hoc tests
Intimacy (Bonferroni corrected) revealed that in the adolescent sample all
We found significant effects for age and relationship status, and for age groups differed significantly from each other (ps < .05), with
the interactions age by gender and age by relationship status. A older adolescents reporting higher levels of commitment. In the
main effect was observed for age, F(5, 2754) ¼ 11.22, p < .001, adult sample, 18- to 88-year-olds, all age groups reported similar
Zp2 ¼ .020. Post hoc tests revealed that early and middle adoles- levels of commitment (ps > .05). Thus, age differences in commit-
cents reported lower levels of intimacy than all other age groups ment are present throughout adolescence up to young adulthood.
(ps < .05). Late adolescents reported lower levels of intimacy com- We found no gender main effect, F(1, 2754) ¼ 0.31, ns, and no
pared to young and middle adults. Furthermore, young and middle significant age by gender interaction, F(5, 2754) ¼ 0.54, ns.
adults reported similar levels of intimacy, but both reported more A main effect was also observed for relationship status, F(2,
intimacy than late adults (respectively, p < .05, and p < .10). Thus, 2754) ¼ 87.79, p < .001, Zp2 ¼ .060; all groups differed significantly
intimacy was highest among young adults and lower among middle from each other (ps < .001). Participants who were currently
and late adults (see Table 3). involved in a relationship reported the most commitment and those

Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at GEORGE MASON UNIV on June 8, 2014

Sumter et al. 423

Currently involved have never been in a romantic relationship do not exhibit these age
5 Has been involved differences. It may be that this group represents a distinct set of
Never involved
individuals whose behaviors and beliefs do not generalize to indi-
Mean level of commitment

4,5 viduals with romantic experience. Adults without romantic experi-

ence, for example, may have specific personality characteristics
4 which inhibit them from forming romantic relationships (e.g. social
anxiety). However, given that there were few adults without roman-
3,5 tic experience in the sample, future research which includes a
greater number of individuals without romantic experience could
3
better elucidate these findings. It is also important to recognize that
the age differences observed in the current study reflect cohort
differences. Longitudinal research which includes a nuanced dis-
2,5
tinction between age groups in adulthood would provide an impor-
12-13 14-15 16-17 18-29 30-50 50+ years
years years years years years tant validation and extension of these findings.
age groups
Passion
Figure 3. Age and relationship status differences in mean levels of
commitment (value range 1 ¼ not true at all to 5 ¼ very true). From a biological perspective, we expected that late adolescents
would report higher levels of passion than early adolescents, while
who had been romantically involved reported the least commitment. respondents in late adulthood would report lower levels of passion
Finally, the Age  Relationship Status was significant, F(10, 2754) than younger adults (see respectively Dahl, 2004; Carstensen &
¼ 4.92, p < .001, Zp2 ¼ .018, and the Age  Gender  Relationship Charles, 1999). In line with our expectations, levels of passion dif-
status was significant, F(10, 2754) ¼ 1.96, p < .05, Zp2 ¼ .007. Post fered among all age groups from 12 to 29 years old. Young adults
hoc tests of the two-way interaction effect between Age  Relation- reported the highest levels of passion and early adolescents reported
ship Status showed a linear increase (polynomial contrast) in com- the lowest level of passion. Our study contradicts the qualitative
mitment across the lifespan among participants who were currently results by Connolly et al. (1999), which revealed a decrease in pas-
involved or who had been involved (see Figure 3). Commitment sion between the ages of 9 and 14. This discrepancy may be due to
showed a linear decrease from young adulthood for participants who methodological differences. Connolly et al. asked specifically how
had never been romantically involved. We also investigated the cross-sex friendships differed from romantic relationships. This
three-way interaction in more detail by investigating the age pattern might have primed the participants towards passion-related descrip-
for each gender by relationship status combination. The overall Age tions, because passion is more uniquely related to romantic relation-
 Relationship Status pattern was replicated for men and women ships than intimacy and commitment.
with one exception. Whereas women in late adulthood who had Young adults also reported higher levels of passion than the
never been involved reported lower levels of commitment than older adult age groups. These results are in line with the idea that
women in young adulthood, no age differences were observed for passion declines during adulthood (e.g. Falconi & Mullet, 2003).
men who had never dated. Although late adults reported lower levels of passion than young
adults, all participants over 30 years of age reported relatively high
levels of passion. These effects provide additional evidence that
Discussion although passionate and erotic love diminish during the later stages
of the lifespan (e.g. Grote & Frieze, 1998; Hatfield et al., 1984;
The current study investigated the dimensional structure and psy-
Montgomery & Sorell, 1997), passion is still present at moderate
chometric properties of the short version of the Triangular Love
to high levels in middle and late adults’ romantic relationships.
Scale (Overbeek et al., 2007). In addition, we investigated age and
gender differences in love during adolescence and adulthood.
Exploratory factor analyses confirmed the expected three-factor
Intimacy
structure in both samples, and all subscales showed high internal
consistency. The subscales showed moderate inter-correlations, With increasing age, participants reported more intimacy. In line
which were less strong compared to studies with earlier versions with previous studies on intimacy-related constructs in the context
of the scale (e.g. Hendrick & Hendrick, 1989). This suggests that of romantic relationships, age differences in intimacy were partic-
the Triangular Love Scale, in its current form, more accurately rep- ularly strong during adolescence (e.g. Seiffge-Krenke, 2003). These
resents the independent components of love. findings can be understood in the light of psychosocial develop-
Our results show that participants who were currently romanti- ment. During this developmental stage adolescents develop their
cally involved reported the highest levels of passion, intimacy and social skills and the instrumental view of relationships is replaced
commitment, and those who had been romantically involved in the by an appreciation of the intimacy that relationships offer (Westen-
past reported the lowest levels. We also find that adults reported berg & Gjerde, 1999). Early adolescents’ instrumental view of rela-
higher levels of passion, intimacy, and commitment than adoles- tionships reflects the idea that relationships can be practical – the
cents. Age differences during adulthood were limited. Respondents people you have a relationship with can help you out, you can spend
in later adulthood reported slightly lower levels of passion and time together and do things together. In this stage they focus on
intimacy when compared to young adults. This age difference pat- what the other can do for them, whereas from late adolescence, a
tern, however, did not apply to participants who had never been relationship is valuable because it allows you to share personal
romantically involved. It is not entirely clear why individuals who thoughts and feelings with another – you can connect with another

Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at GEORGE MASON UNIV on June 8, 2014

424 International Journal of Behavioral Development 37(5)

and a relationship provides emotional support. From this point on might be more pronounced in secular than in religious countries.
the focus shifts to what partners in a relationship can mean to each Although age differences might be less pronounced when controlling
other. These changes are likely to foster intimacy in romantic for different variables, studies have also shown that age differences
relationships. Finally, although middle and late adults reported in love are robust. For example, Ahmetoglu, Swami, and
slightly lower levels of intimacy than young adults, age differences Chamorro-Premuzic (2010) showed that the effect of age on reported
in intimacy among participants aged 30 years and older were passion, intimacy, and commitment remained significant even after
limited (cf. Reedy et al., 1981; Falconi & Mullet, 2003). controlling for Big 5 personality traits.
In addition, not only should future studies include multiple expla-
natory variables, but we also need to investigate love in a broader
Commitment social context. Romantic relationships are one type of many relation-
We theorized that commitment would become more important ships that people develop. Future research should pay more attention
during adolescence as romantic relationships develop from casual to how love relates to other important relationships during the
to committed relationships (e.g. Gordon & Miller, 1984). In line with lifespan, such as family relationships and friendships. These kin and
our expectation, late adolescents reported higher levels of commit- non-kin relationships can predict the quality of one’s romantic
ment than early adolescents, and young adults reported even higher relationships (e.g. Seiffge-Krenke, 2003). It is also interesting to
levels of commitment than late adolescents. However, in all adoles- investigate whether during adolescence those who report high levels
cent age groups mean levels of commitment were high. Our results of intimacy in romantic relationships also show more intimacy in
support the argument expressed by Diamond, Savin-Williams, and their peer or parent relationships. Looking at the interplay between
Dubé (1999) that ‘adolescent romantic relationships involve a degree different relationships will broaden our understanding of love.
of mutual commitment frequently unappreciated by adults’ (p. 200). Finally, a thorough lifespan approach will help us better under-
Although we expected that late adults would report the most stand the observed age differences. Thus, future studies should use
commitment, in the current sample all adult age groups reported proximal measures of maturation, motivations, life experiences and
similar levels of commitment. This finding might be due to a ceiling social context that can be seen as the underlying mechanisms of
effect as all adults reported very high levels of commitment (i.e. age-related changes in perceptions of love (e.g. Fingerman & Lang,
average scores around 4.25 on a scale ranging from 1 to 5). 2004). These measures allow us to better understand whether the
observed age differences in three components of love reflect devel-
opmental changes. Furthermore, within age group differences might
Gender be related to life events, like getting married, children, sickness and
stress.
Previous studies on gender differences in love perceptions among In conclusion, the current results have shown that the short
both adolescents and adults showed mixed results (e.g. Ahmetoglu version of the Triangular Love Scale is a valid instrument to study
et al., 2010; Connolly et al., 1999, Gao, 2001; Ha et al., 2010). love throughout the lifespan. Our study provided several important
Notably, all gender differences in the reported levels of passion, insights in age differences in love. All components of love became
intimacy and commitment in our study were modest in size. Men more prominent from adolescence to young adulthood, and com-
reported higher levels of passion than women in all age groups, and mitment became the primary component within adult’s conceptions
lower levels of intimacy in some age groups. There were no gender of love. More specifically, having romantic experiences seems to be
differences in reported levels of commitment. When interpreting an important learning experience. Overall, gender differences with
our gender differences it is important not to reify our findings, espe- regard to intimacy, passion and commitment were modest. Finally,
cially because the differences we observed were modest (e.g. Hyde, it is apparent that research should reflect the multidimensionality of
2005; Wright, 1988). Following Wright (1988), it is important to love. Therefore, future studies should test the differential effect of
stress that the gender differences reported in the manuscript should passion, intimacy and commitment on outcome variables of inter-
not be exaggerated. Overall, men and women seemed more similar est, e.g. relational satisfaction and well-being.
than different in reported levels of passion, intimacy, and commit-
ment. These limited gender differences are consistent with more
recent views of gender differences in relationships that argue that Funding
similarities between men and women outnumber the differences We would like to thank the Netherlands Organization for Scientific
(Marshall, 2010; Montgomery & Sorell, 1997). Thus, differences Research [NWO] for providing support for this study.
within sexes are bigger than differences between sexes.
Furthermore, gender is one between-person variable that is
strongly related to other variables that might affect perceptions of Note
love. For this reason, it is important that future research include 1. Adolescent: 12–17 years of age; Adult: 18 years of age or older.
possible confounding variables that may shed light on within-
group differences.
References
Acevedo, B. P., & Aron, A. (2009). Does a long-term relationship kill
Contextualizing love across the lifespan romantic love? Review of General Psychology, 13, 59–65. doi: 10.
Our findings need to be seen in the context of several limitations. 1037/a0014226.
Although age and gender are important predictors of love, several Ahmetoglu, A., Swami, V., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2010). The
other variables might moderate the main effects of age and gender. relationship between dimensions of love, personality, and relationship
For instance, religiosity is negatively related to love styles where pas- length. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 1181–90. doi: 10.1007/
sion dominates (Montgomery & Sorell, 1997). Thus, age differences s10508-009-9515-5.

Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at GEORGE MASON UNIV on June 8, 2014

Sumter et al. 425

Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development Fehr, B. (2001). The status of theory and research on love and commit-
from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, ment. In G.J.O. Fletcher and M.S. Thomas (Eds.), Blackwell hand-
55, 469–480. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469. book of social psychology: Interpersonal processes (pp. 331–356).
Beigel, H. (1951). Romantic love. American Sociological Review, 16, Oxford: Blackwell.
236–334. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2087605. Feiring, C. (1996). Concepts of romance in 15-year-old adolescents.
Berscheid, E. (2010). Love in the fourth dimension. Annual Review of Journal of Research on Adolescence, 6, 181–200. Retrieved from
Psychology, 61, 1–25. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost.
Buhrmester, D., & Furman, F. (1987). The development of companionship Fingerman, K. L., & Lang, F. (2004). Coming together: A lifespan per-
and intimacy. Child Development, 58, 1101–1113. doi: 10.2307/ spective on personal relationships. In F. Lang and K. L. Fingerman
1130550. (Eds.), Growing together: Personal relationships across the life-
Carstensen, L. L., & Charles, S. T. (1999). Emotion in the second half span (pp. 1–23). New York: Cambridge University Press.
of life. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7, 144–149. Formica, M. J. (2009). Gender differences, sexuality, and emotionality.
doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.ep10836825. Psychology Today. Retrieved 23 January 2013 (http://www.psycho-
Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M., & Charles, S. T. (1999). Taking logytoday.com).
time seriously: A theory of socioemotional selectivity. American Galotti, K. M., Kozberg, S. F., & Appleman, D. (1990). Younger and
Psychologist, 54, 165–181. doi: 10.1023/A%3A1024569803230. older adolescents’ thinking about commitments. Journal of Experi-
CBS (2009). Statline. Voorburg/Heerlen: Centraal Bureau voor de mental Child Psychology, 50, 324–339. doi: 10.1016/0022-0965
Statistiek (http://statline.cbs.nl). (90)90073-H.
Collins, W. A. (1997). Relationships and development during adoles- Gao, G. (2001). Intimacy, passion and commitment in Chinese and US
cence: Interpersonal adaptation to individual change. Personal American romantic relationships. International Journal of Intercul-
Relationships, 4, 1–14. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1997.tb00126.x. tural Relations, 25, 329–342. doi: 10.1016/S0147-1767(01)00007-4.
Collins, W. A. (2003). More than a myth: The developmental signifi- Gordon, M., & Miller, R. L. (1984). Going steady in the 1980s: Exclu-
cance of romantic relationships during adolescence. Journal of sive relationships in six Connecticut high schools. Sociology and
Research on Adolescence, 13, 1–24. doi: 10.1111/1532-7795. Social Research, 68, 463–479.
1301001. Grote, N. K., & Frieze, I. H. (1998). Remembrance of things past: Per-
Collins, W. A., Welsh, D. P., & Furman, W. (2009). Adolescent roman- ceptions of marital love from its beginnings to the present. Journal
tic relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 631–652. doi: of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 91–109. doi: 10.1177/
10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163459. 0265407598151006.
Connolly, J. A., Craig, W., Goldberg, A., & Pepler, D. (1999). Concep- Ha, T., Overbeek, G., de Greef, M., Scholte, R. H. J., & Engels, R. C.
tions of cross-sex friendships and romantic relationships in early M. E. (2010). The importance of relationships with parents and best
adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 481–494. doi: friends for adolescents’ romantic relationship quality: Differences
10.1023/A:1021669024820. between indigenous and ethnic Dutch adolescents. International
Connolly, J. A., & Goldberg, A. (1999). Romantic relationships in ado- Journal of Behavioral Development, 34, 121–127. doi: 10.1177/
lescence: The role of friends and peers in their emergence and 0165025409360293.
development. In W. Furman, B. Bradford Brown and C. Feiring Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R. L. (1994). Love and intimacy. Encyclopedia
(Eds.), The Development of Romantic Relationships in Adolescence of Mental Health, 2 (pp. 583–592.) New York: Academic Press.
(pp. 266–290). New York: Cambridge University Press. Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1986). Measuring passionate love in inti-
Cyranowski, J., & Frank, E. (2000). Adolescent onset of the gender dif- mate relations. Journal of Adolescence, 9, 383–410.
ference in lifetime rates of major depression. Archives of General Hatfield, E., Traupmann, J., & Sprecher, S. (1984). Older women’s per-
Psychiatry, 57, 21–27. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.57.1.21. ceptions of their intimate relationships. Journal of Social and Clin-
Dahl, R. E. (2004). Adolescent brain development: A period of vulner- ical Psychology, 2, 108–124. doi: 10.1521/jscp.1984.2.2.108.
abilities and opportunities. Annals of the New York Academy of Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an
Sciences, 1021, 1–22. doi: 10.1196/annals.1308.001. attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An inter- 52, 511–524. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511.
active model of gender related behavior. Psychological Review, 94, Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (1986). A theory and method of love.
369–389. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.369. Journal Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 392–402. doi: 10.
Diamond, L. M., Savin-Williams, R. C., & Dubé, E. M. (1999). Sex, 1037/0022-3514.50.2.392.
dating, passionate friendships, and romance: Intimate peer relations Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (1989). Research on love: Does it mea-
among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adolescents. In W. Furman, C. sure up? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56,
Feiring and B. B. Brown (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on 784–794. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.392.
adolescent romantic relationships (pp. 175–210). New York: Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (2002). Linking romantic love with
Cambridge University Press. sex: Development of perceptions of love and sex scale. Journal of
Dindia, K., & Allen, M. (1992). Sex differences in self-disclosure: A Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 361–378. doi: 10.1177/
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 106–124. doi: 10. 0265407502193004.
1037/0033-2909.112.1.106. Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psy-
Duffy, S., & Rusbult, C. E. (1986). Satisfaction and commitment in chologist, 60, 581–592. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581.
homosexual and heterosexual relationships. Journal of Homosexu- Knox, D. Jr. (1970). Conceptions of love at three developmental levels.
ality, 12, 1–23. doi: 10.1300/J082v12n02_01. Family Coordinator, 19, 151–156.
Falconi, A., & Mullet, E. (2003). Cognitive algebra of love through the Langeslag, S. J. E., Muris, P., & Franken, I. H. A. (2012). Measuring
adult life. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, romantic love: Psychometric properties of the infatuation and
57, 277–292. doi: 10.2190/NPQH-MDLX-F48U-AA35. attachment scales. Journal of Sex Research, iFirst.

Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at GEORGE MASON UNIV on June 8, 2014

426 International Journal of Behavioral Development 37(5)

Lemieux, R., & Hale, J. L. (1999). Intimacy, passion, and commitment and enhancement (pp. 87–115). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
in young romantic relationships: Successfully measuring the trian- Associates.
gular theory of love. Psychological Reports, 85, 497–503. doi: 10. Schoenfeld, E. A., Bredow, C. A., & Huston, T. L. (2012). Do men and
2466/pr0.1999.85.2.497. women show love differently in marriage? Personality and Social
Levesque, R. (1993). The romantic experiences of adolescents in satis- Psychological Bulletin, 38, 1396–1409. doi: 10.1177/014616721
fying love relationships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 22, 2450739.
219–251. Seiffge-Krenke, I. (2003). Testing theories of romantic development
Luong, G., Charles, S., & Fingerman, K. L. (2011). Better with age: from adolescence to young adulthood: Evidence of a developmental
Social relationships across adulthood. Journal of Personal and sequence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27,
Social Relations, 28, 9–23. doi: 10.1007/BF01537790. 519–531. doi: 10.1080/01650250344000145.
Maccoby, E. E. (1998). Gender as a social category. Developmental Shulman, S., & Scharf, M. (2000). Adolescent romantic behaviors and
Psychology, 24, 755–765. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.24.6.755. perceptions: Age and gender-related differences and their links with
Marshall, T. C. (2010). Gender, peer relations, and intimate romantic family and peer relationships. Journal of Research on Adolescence,
relationships. In J. C. Chrisler and D. R. McCreary (Eds.), Hand- 10, 99–118. doi:10.1207/SJRA1001_5.
book of gender research in psychology, Volume 2: Gender research Shulman, S., Walsh, S. D., Weisman, O., & Schelyer, M. (2009).
in social and applied psychology (pp. 281–310). New York: Romantic contexts, sexual behavior, and depressive symptoms in
Springer. adolescent males and females. Sex Roles, 61, 850–863. doi: 10.
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T. Jr., de Lima, M. P., Simoes, A., Ostendorf, 1007/s11199-009-9691-8.
F., Angleitner, A., MaruSic, I., Bratko, D., Caprara, G. V., Barbar- Signorella, M. L., & Cooper, J. E. (2011). Relationship suggestions
anelli, C., Chae, J.-H., & Piedmont, R. L. (1999). Age differences in from self-help books: Gender stereotyping, preferences, and context
personality across the adult life span: Parallels in five cultures. effects. Sex Roles, 65, 371–382. doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-0023-4.
Developmental Psychology, 35, 466–477. doi: 10.1037/0012- Sprecher, S., & Fehr, B. (2006). Enhancement of mood and self-esteem
1649.35.2.466. as a result of giving and receiving compassionate love. Current
Meeks, B. S., Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1998). Communication, Research in Social Psychology, 11, 227–242.
love and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Steinberg, L., Cauffman, E., Woolard, J., Graham, S., & Banich, M.
Relationships, 15, 755–73. doi: 10.1177/0265407598156003. (2009). Are adolescents less mature than adults? Minors’ access
Montgomery, M. J., & Sorell, G. T. (1997). Differences in love attitudes to abortion, the juvenile death penalty, and the alleged APA ‘flip-
across family life stages. Family Relations, 46, 55–61. doi: 10.2307/ flop’. American Psychologist, 64, 583–594. doi: 10.1037/a0014763.
585607. Sternberg, R. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological
Neto, F. (2012). Perceptions of love and sex across the adult life span. Review, 93, 119–135. doi: 10.1037//0033-295X.93.2.119.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29, 760–775. Sternberg, R. (1997). Construct validation of a triangular love scale.
Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 313–335. doi: 10.1002/
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 29–51. doi: 10.1037/ (SICI)1099- 0992(199705)27:3<313: AID-EJSP824>3.0.CO;2-4.
0033-2909.114.1.29. Tanner, J. L., Arnett, J. J., & Leis, J. A. (2009). Emerging adulthood:
Overbeek, G., Ha, T., Scholte, R., de Kemp, R., & Engels, R. (2007). Learning and development during the first stage of adulthood. In
Brief report: Intimacy, passion, and commitment in romantic rela- M. C. Smith and N. DeFrates-Densch (Eds.), Handbook of Research
tionships – Validation of a ‘triangular love scale’ for adolescents. on Adult Development and Learning (pp. 34–67). New York:
Journal of Adolescence, 30, 523–528. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence. Routledge.
2006.12.002. Underwood, M. K., & Rosen, L. H. (2009). Gender, peer relations, and
Reedy, M. N., Birren, J. E., & Schaie, K. W. (1981). Age and sex challenges for girlfriends and boyfriends coming together in adoles-
differences in satisfying love relationships across the adult lifespan. cence. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33, 16–20. doi: 10.1111/j.
Human Development, 24, 52–66. doi: 10.1159/000272625. 1471-6402.2008.01468.x.
Rose, A., & Rudolph, K. D. (2006). A review of sex differences in peer Westenberg, P. M., & Gjerde, P. F. (1999). Ego development during
relationship processes: Potential trade-offs for the emotional and the transition from adolescence to young adulthood: A nine-year
behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychological Bulletin, longitudinal study. Journal of Research in Personality, 33,
132, 98–131. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.98. 233–252.
Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. Journal of Personal- Winch, R. F. (1952). The modern family. New York: Holt.
ity and Social Psychology, 16, 265–273. Wright, P. H. (1988). Interpreting research on gender differences in
Rusbult, C. E., Olsen, N., Davis, J. L., & Hannon, P. A. (2001). Com- friendship: A case for moderation and a plea for caution. Journal
mitment and relationship maintenance mechanisms. In J. Warvey of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 367–373. doi: 10.1177/
and A. Wenzel (Eds.), Close romantic relationships: Maintenance 0265407588053006.

Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at GEORGE MASON UNIV on June 8, 2014

Sumter et al. 427

Appendix Version 2 - with romantic relationship experience, but currently

not involved. Adolescents are asked to think about their former girl-
Short triangular love scale for adolescents and adults friend or boyfriend.
Description. 12-item scale that measures three elements of love: Adults are asked to think about their former (marriage) partner.
passion, intimacy and commitment. The scale is adapted from the Passion.
triangular love scale for adolescents (Overbeek et al., 2007). The
current scale can be used among adolescents and adults.1 Three I felt strongly attracted to my partner.
versions are available depending on the respondent’s relationship I felt sexually aroused by my partner.
status. Cronbach’s alphas for the three subscales are high.
I found my partner sexually attractive.
Reference. Overbeek, G., Ha, T., Scholte, R., de Kemp, R., & My partner and I clearly showed each other our love.
Engels, R. (2007). Brief report: Intimacy, passion, and commitment
in romantic relationships – Validation of a ‘triangular love scale’
for adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 30, 523–528. Intimacy.
My partner and I always told each other personal things.
Filter question. We recommend to include the following filter ques-
tion. Please describe your current relationship status? I told my partner everything.
My partner and I told each other all our secrets.
a. I am currently dating, married or in a stable relationship
c Go to Version 1 My partner understood how I felt.
b. I currently don’t have a partner, but I have dated, been mar-
riedor have had a stable relationship c Go to Version 2 Commitment.
c. I have never dated nor been in a stable relationship
c Go to Version 3
I wanted my relationship to be never-ending.
I never wanted to have another partner.
Instructions. We want to know what you think about love and rela-
I wanted the relationship with my partner to last forever.
tionships. Please indicate how much the statements below apply to
you. I was rather with my partner than with anyone else.
(Response options: very true, true, partly true/partly untrue,
untrue, very untrue) Version 3 - with no romantic relationship experience. Adolescents
Version 1 - in romantic relationship. Adolescents are asked to think are asked to think about a future girlfriend/boyfriend.Adults are
about the person they are currently dating or are in a relationship asked to think about a future (marriage)partner.
with. Adults are asked to think about their (marital) partner. Passion.
Passion. I want to feel strongly attracted to my partner.
I feel a strong attraction to my partner. I want to feel sexually aroused by my partner.
I feel sexually aroused by my partner. I want to find my partner sexually attractive.
I find my partner sexually attractive. My partner and I will clearly show each other our love.
My partner and I clearly show each other our love.
Intimacy.
Intimacy.
My partner and I always will tell each other personal things.
My partner and I always tell each other personal things.
I will tell my partner everything.
I tell my partner everything.
My partner and I will tell each other all our secrets.
My partner and I tell each other all our secrets.
My partner will understand how I feel.
My partner understands how I feel.

Commitment. Commitment.
I want my relationship to be never-ending. I would want my relationship to be never-ending.
I never want to have another partner. I would never want to have another partner.
I want the relationship with my partner to last forever. I would want the relationship with my partner to last forever.
I would rather be with my partner than with anyone else. I would rather be with my partner than with anyone else.

Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at GEORGE MASON UNIV on June 8, 2014