The Routledge Handbok of Love in Philosophy

Page 1

465

LOVE IN CONTEMPORARY

PSYCHOLOGY AND

NEUROSCIENCE

Berit Brogaard

Introduction

The three most central questions in recent psychological and neuroscientific approaches to love

are: (1) the question of why people fall in love, (2) the question of what love is, and (3) the

question of what causes unhealthy love to develop. This chapter provides an overview and dis-

cussion of the main answers to these questions in psychology and neuroscience.

As we will see, some of the main factors that cause people to fall in love are: (1) a readiness

to fall in love (Aron et al., 1989), (2) the perceived potential for self- expansion (Aron & Aron,

1986; Aron et al., 1989), and (3) the novelty, unpredictability, and mystery the other person is

perceiving as introducing (Dutton & Aron, 1974). All three factors line up with findings in the

neuroscience of love. Neuroscientists have shown that people who fall in love have composi-

tions of obsession and reward chemicals that are similar to those found in individuals with

obsessive- compulsive disorder (Marazziti et al., 1999).

Falling in love, of course, is different from continuing to be in love. How likely romantic

love is to endure is determined by a different set of factors, including feelings of familiarity and

similarity between the partners’ attitudes and core values (Acevedo & Aron, 2009). This is mani-

fested neurochemically in more stable brain levels of mood and pleasure neurotransmitters as

well as an increase in the brain’s levels of bonding chemicals (Zeki, 2007).

Newer theoretical and empirical studies of the nature of love have led to several theories of

love. One fundamental issue turns on the question of whether love is an emotion or an attribute

of a loving relationship. Theories that take love to be an attribute of a loving relationship tend

not to be comprehensive enough to capture both reciprocated and unrequited love. This raises

a potential challenge for theories that focus too much on relationships in their characterization

of love. Most of these theories, however, can be modified to focus more exclusively on the

emotions the lover exhibits toward a real or imagined lover and toward the potential for a rela-

tionship. Sternberg’s (1986) triangular theory of love is a case in point. Although it is originally

formulated in terms of three relationship attributes, namely, intimacy, passion, and commit-

ment, it can be cashed out in terms of the corresponding emotions inhabited by the lover.

Even when cashed out in this way, however, the triangular theory does not answer the ques-

tion of what causes unhealthy love to develop. A more successful account of why unhealthy love

develops has been provided within the framework of attachment theory, as originally developed

Page 2

Berit Brogaard

466

by John Bowlby (1973) and Mary Ainsworth (Ainsworth et al., 1978). Attachment theory takes

people’s mental representations of loving relationships—representations that in some cases have

been formed in early childhood and in other cases in later relationships—to predict whether

people are likely to form healthy or unhealthy love relationships and feel love in healthy or

unhealthy ways. Attachment theory by itself cannot fully account for romantic love (Hazan &

Shaver, 1987; Shaver & Hazan, 1987). But when supplemented by two additional components

characteristic of healthy romantic love (a desire to engage in caregiving and a feeling of sexual

attraction), it provides a plausible theory of romantic love (Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Shaver &

Hazan, 1987).

Attachment theory was originally developed as an alternative to psychoanalytic approaches to

love (Bowlby, 1973). Like attachment theory, psychoanalytic approaches describe love in terms of

early childhood experiences or past relationships (Bergmann, 1988). Traditionally, psychoanalytic

approaches were more intensely focused on the sexual interactions between parents and child.

However, newer psychoanalytic approaches have largely become desexualized (Green, 1995;

Stein, 1998a, 1998b). The sexual component of the theories is typically treated as a metaphor that

describes attachment patterns. New psychoanalytic approaches are thus similar to attachment

theory in their focus and explanatory power (Fonagy & Target, 2007; Blatt & Levy, 2003).

In this chapter I shall focus primarily on romantic love but contrast it with other kinds of love

where appropriate. In the first section I will look closer at the question of why people fall in

love. I will then address the questions of whether love is best understood as an emotion or an

attribute of a loving relationship. I will then turn to the theory of love advocated within the

framework of attachment theory. Finally, I will look at some traditional and contemporary psy-

choanalytic approaches to love.

Why Do People Fall in Love?

One question that has received quite a bit of attention in the psychological literature on love is

that of why people fall in love. One promising answer to this question is that romantic love

occurs when the attributes that generate general attraction together with certain social factors

and circumstances that spark passion are particularly strong. The general attraction attributes are

as follows (Aron et al., 1989): 1. Similarity. This includes similarity of people’s belief sets and to

a lesser extent similarity of personality traits and ways of thinking. 2. Propinquity. This includes

familiarity with the other, which can be caused by having time spent together, living near each

other, thinking about the other, or anticipating interaction with the other. 3. Desirable character-

istics. This general attraction attribute is particularly focused on an outer physical appearance that

is found desirable and to a lesser extent on desirable personality traits. 4. Reciprocal liking. When

the other person is attracted to you or likes you, that can increase your own liking.

Two further factors that can help explain why people fall in love turn on mate selection

(Aron et al., 1989): 5. Social influences. The potential union satisfying general social norms and

acceptance of the potential union within one’s social network can contribute to people falling

in love. Or if a union does not satisfy general social norms or is not accepted by one’s social

network, this can result in people falling out of love. 6. Filling needs. If a person can fulfill needs

for companionship, love, sex, or mating, there is a greater chance that the other person will fall

in love with him or her.

Five additional factors seem to be required for the love to be truly passionate as opposed to

being a kind of friendship love (Aron et al., 1989): 7. Arousal/Unusualness. Being in an unusual

or arousing environment can spark passion, even if the environment is perceived as dangerous

or spooky (Dutton & Aron, 1974). 8. Specific cues. A particular feature of the other may spark

Page 3

Love in Contemporary Psychology

467

particularly strong attraction (e.g., parts of their body or facial features). 9. Readiness. The more

you want to be in a relationship, the lower your self- esteem and the more likely you are to fall

in love. 10. Isolation. Spending time alone with another person can also contribute to a develop-

ment of passion. 11. Mystery. If there is some mystery surrounding the other person and uncer-

tainty about what the other person thinks or feels or when he or she will initiate contact, this

can also contribute to passion.

Aron et al. (1989) examined which of these factors are most prevalent in college students

based on their descriptions of their experiences of falling in love. They found that the most

frequently mentioned factor preceding their experiences of love was finding certain characteris-

tics of the other desirable and reciprocity of the experienced emotions. There was a moderate

frequency of descriptions mentioning the factors that spark passion (e.g., readiness, arousal/

unusualness). There was a low to moderate frequency of descriptions of the other having been

perceived as similar to the subject or having spent time with the other.

Aron et al. (1989) argue that the self- expansion model proposed in Aron and Aron (1986)

predicts this weighing of factors. On the self- expansion model, we have the greatest propensity

to fall in love when we perceive the other person as a way for us to undergo rapid self- expansion.

Entering a committed relationship requires giving up some of one’s personal autonomy by

including the other person in one’s life. If the other possesses desirable characteristics, the other

person’s presence in one’s life can be perceived as an expansion of the self as opposed to a loss

of freedom (Aron & Aron, 1996).

Work in neuroscience on love supports these findings in psychology. The neurochemical

profile of people who are in love is characterized by low levels of the satiation chemical serot-

onin (Zeki, 2007). Marazziti et al. (1999) found that the density of platelet [3H]paroxetine ([3H]

Par) binding sites on the serotonin transporter was significantly lower in subjects who had fallen

in love within the previous six months compared to normal subjects. In fact, the density of

platelet [3H]Par binding sites in subjects who had recently fallen in love was found to be similar

to that of unmedicated patients with obsessive- compulsive disorder. Like the standard antide-

pressants SSRIs, [3H]paroxetine binds to the serotonin (5-HT) transporter. This inactivates the

transporter, preventing it from transporting serotonin from back into the neurons, where it is

inactive. A low density of platelet [3H]paroxetine ([3H]Par) binding sites is thus a strong indi-

cator of lower brain levels of serotonin. The authors argue that the obsessive component of new

love makes it similar to obsessive- compulsive disorder in its serotonin profile.

It is unsurprising, then, that several of the passion- generating factors, including arousal/

unusualness, readiness, and mystery, correlate both with the propensity to fall in love and

increased anxiety. Increased anxiety triggers increased blood levels of adrenaline and other stress

chemicals. As argued by Dutton and Aron (1974), the feeling of increased levels of adrenaline is

sometimes mistaken for a feeling of being in love with a person. Dutton and Aron (1974) found

that more men fell in love with an attractive female interviewer when she asked questions in

anxiety- provoking situations (a fear- arousing suspension bridge) compared to calm situations

(non- fear-arousing bridge). So, even in the absence of most of the other predictors of the onset

of romantic love, meeting a person in an anxiety- provoking situation can cause us to fall in love

with that person.

Another interesting feature of love is that a felt proximity to a new lover gives rise to high

brain levels of the reward and motivation chemical dopamine, whereas distance can lead to crav-

ings. Aron et al. (2005) used functional magnetic resonance imaging to study people who were

intensely in love from one to 17 months. The subjects viewed a photograph of their beloved

and then after a distraction- attention task they viewed a photograph of a familiar individual. The

researchers found heightened brain activation in the right ventral tegmental area and the right

Page 4

Berit Brogaard

468

postero- dorsal body and medial caudate nucleus—dopamine- rich areas associated with reward

and motivation—in response to the photographs of the individual the subject was in love with.

So, when you are in love, the imagined or actual presence of the beloved is rewarding and

motivating.

The self- expansion model proposed by Aron and Aron (1986) can explain this result as

follows: when a subject conceives of the beloved and him- or herself as forming a tight union,

the desirable characteristics of the beloved trigger a feeling of reward. This can prompt us to go

out of our way to be with the beloved in order to experience the most intense feeling of

reward.

The self- expansion model also predicts that the similarity and propinquity factors should have

a paradoxical effect in initial stages of falling in love but should have a more significant influence

on the duration of love (Acevedo & Aron, 2009). The main reason for this is that familiarity and

similarity make it less likely that the other person will constitute an expansion of you, if you

include him or her in your life.

These predictions too are consistent with the findings in neuroscience. Low levels of serot-

onin are likely counteracted by similarity and familiarity, which can prevent people from falling

in love (Zeki, 2007). At later stages of a love relationship, however, these same factors may

correlate with higher levels of the attachment and bonding chemicals oxytocin and vasopressin.

Oxytocin and vasopressin have been shown to increase during the phase of love relationship that

fosters romantic attachment and pair bonding (Zeki, 2007).

Love as an Emotion

Several psychologists have defended the view that love is an emotion (e.g., Berscheid & Walster,

1974; Dutton, & Aron, 1974; Shaver & Hazan, 1988; Gonzaga et al., 2006). Understood as an

emotion, love can be taken to characterize its felt manifestations either as a surge of passion or

affection or the ongoing disposition to have those feelings for another person (Shaver & Hazan,

1988).

If love is an emotion, this raises the question of whether love is a basic or a complex emotion.

The standard view is that there are only seven basic emotions: joy, anger, sadness, contempt,

fear, disgust, and surprise.1 Basic emotions are associated with universally recognizable facial

expressions, and they resist analysis in terms of other more basic mental states. Complex emo-

tions, by contrast, are not associated with universally recognizable facial expressions, and they

have several components to them—components that can vary from person to person and from

culture to culture.

Because love is not associated with universally recognizable facial expressions, and it seems

analyzable in terms components such as joy, anxiety, and jealousy, love is generally thought to

be a non- basic emotion.

However, Shaver et al. (1996) argue that love should be considered a basic emotion like

anger and joy. One observation they make is that ‘love is one of the most prototypical emotions

in the minds of layperson’ (Shaver et al., 1996: 81). Fehr and Russell (1984) asked 200 students

to ‘list as many examples as you can of the category emotion’. They did not define ‘emotion’.

The subjects top six choice of emotions (out of 196) were: happiness (listed by 152 people),

anger (149), sadness (136), love (124), fear (96), and hate (89). Given that emotion theorists rely

heavily on everyday knowledge in their analysis of emotions, Shaver et al. (1996) argue, they

ought to give weight to this insight.

Shaver et al. (1987) furthermore found that love is a cognitively basic emotion in Rosch’s

(1978) prototype sense. A concept is cognitively basic when its instances are prototypes. For

Page 5

Love in Contemporary Psychology

469

example, soccer games are prototypes for game, chairs and sofas are prototypes for furniture, and

robins are prototypes for birds. The prototype concepts referring to prototypes are cognitively

basic. If the concept of love is cognitively basic, this gives us further reason to include love along

the basic emotions.

Shaver et al. (1996) grant that love can take the form of a long- lasting sentiment, which is a

dispositional form of the emotion, but they correctly observe that all the standard basic emotions

can take the form of a long- lasting sentiment as well. You can be angry with or disgusted by a

person for a very long time. Yet the short outburst of anger or disgust is not less basic for that

reason. Love is similar to the other basic emotions in that there are brief surges or outbursts of

feeling in love or feeling especially loving. These outbursts are associated with universal bodily

signals, such as a flushing face, a widening of the eyes or eye- locking, and action- tendencies, for

instance a tendency to touch the other person, proximity- seeking, and behavioral synchrony

between lovers. The universality of love, Shaver et al. (1996) argue, is uncovered in historical

writings and anthropological studies, which reveal that love is universally a very intense feeling

that can give rise to romantic anguish and longing. It thus seems that while love as a sentiment

is not fundamental and is associated with many emotion and behavior tendencies, sudden surges

of love should be included among the basic emotions.

These considerations of basic versus complex emotions raise the question of what kind of

mental state an emotion is. One view is that emotions are perceptions of mental or bodily

responses to a certain evaluative rendition of an object or event in the external environment

(Prinz, 2004; Brogaard, 2015: chapter 3).2 For example, fear of a tiger is a mental and bodily

response to what is perceived as a tiger presenting a threat to the subject’s well- being. Likewise,

resenting an ex for breaking up with you is a mental and bodily response to what is perceived as

an ex- partner having treated you unjustly. On this account, love of a person is a mental and

bodily response to what is perceived as a specific lovable person.

The perceived- response theory of emotions lends itself to a particular understanding of

rational (or healthy) and irrational (or unhealthy) forms of love. A loving response is rational (or

healthy), we can say, just in case (i) there is no misrepresentation of those of the beloved’s qual-

ities that fuel the loving response, and (ii) the loving response matches the perceived lovability

of the beloved (Brogaard, 2015). If your love harms your well- being, your loving response does

not properly correspond to the perceived lovability (or loving qualities) of the beloved. In unre-

quited love, you may be representing the beloved’s qualities correctly. For example, you may

be aware of the fact that when a person rejects you, this can enhance your desire to be with that

person. Even when unrequited love does not misrepresent, however, it does not match the

perceived loving qualities of the beloved. Someone who does not love you and likely does not

really care about you has a quality that is not loving toward you: they do not really care about

you. So, persistently unrequited love is irrational, which is to say that you ought not love the

person (however hard it can be not to do that).

Here is another case. For reasons beyond your imagination, you cannot help but perceive

your emotionally abusive girlfriend as a lovable person. Your loving response to her thus matches

her perceived lovability. However, because you misperceive her as possessing lovable qualities—

the qualities that fuel your love—your emotional response is fueled by properties your girlfriend

does not possess. Accordingly, your love is irrational, which is to say that you ought not to love

her (however hard it can be not to do that).

As we will see below, the unhealthy forms of love depicted by attachment- theoretical

approaches to love are cases in which there is a misrepresentation of the qualities of the beloved

that fuel the loving response or cases in which the loving response fails to match the perceived

lovability of the beloved.

Page 6

Berit Brogaard

470

Triangular Theories of Love

An alternative to treating love as an emotion is to treat it as an attribute (or attributes) of a rela-

tionship (Sternberg, 1986, 1998; Kolodny, 2003). Robert Sternberg’s (1986) triangular theory

of love is a well- known instance of this. On this view, love has three components: intimacy,

passion, and commitment. The intimacy component captures the feelings of being close, con-

nected, and bonded in a loving relationship. The passion component encompasses romance and

physical attraction in a loving relationship. Finally, the commitment component refers to a deci-

sion two people have made to love each other and maintain that love over time.

According to Sternberg (1986), the three components of love—intimacy, passion, and

commitment—constitute different types of love, for instance romantic love, parental love, and

friendship love. Intimacy is a shared component in romantic love, parental love, and friendship

love. The commitment component is likely to be strong in love relationships with members of

one’s nuclear family, but it need not play a major role in romantic love. Passion, by contrast, is

central to romantic love but is absent in pure instances of the other types of love.

The theory also predicts that there are different types of romantic love. These types include

liking (intimacy alone), infatuation (passion alone), empty love (commitment alone), short- term

romantic love and friends- with-benefits relationships (intimacy plus passion), and romantic love

in a long- term relationship (intimacy plus passion plus commitment).

Sternberg (1998) provides an account of how the three dimensions of love fluctuate and

change over the course of a relationship, and why some changes in the components lead to suc-

cessful relationships while other changes lead to relationship failure. Excessive passion and

intimacy, Sternberg (1998) argues, can shorten the length of a relationship. The main positive

influence on relationship length is commitment. Evidence for these predictions were found in

empirical studies (Lemieux & Hale, 2002). Analyses of the emotions of college students indi-

cated negative correlations between intimacy and relationship length as well as between passion

and relationship length. The correlation between commitment and relationship length was

found to be positive.

One significant virtue of Sternberg’s triangular theory of love is that it easily accommodates

nearly all types of love (including romantic love, friendship love, and companionate love). A

more problematic feature of the view is that it cannot easily account for cases of unreciprocated

love or other forms of unfulfilled love. Love can be experienced as distinct from pure passion

even when there is no intimacy and no commitment and even in the absence of a belief that

intimacy and commitment will emerge.

The triangular theory can, however, be revised to account for unfulfilled love. For example,

we can construe romantic love as consisting partially in feelings of passion combined with an

intense longing for intimacy and in some cases also a longing for commitment.

Another problematic feature of the triangular theory is its lack of focus on attachment.

Recent empirical studies suggest that passion and secure attachment can both be routes to

relationship satisfaction, and that secure attachment likely affects relationship satisfaction

through intimacy and commitment (Madey & Rodgers, 2009). Sternberg’s triangular theory

does not itself focus on attachment, however. Commitment, on his view, is a conscious deci-

sion, not a result of an ability to bond with another person. However, it is evidently the case

that in a culture where we can freely choose our partner, a conscious choice to commitment

is not free- floating but is linked to attachment and passion. As we will see in the next section,

because the triangular theory does not treat secure attachment as fundamental for healthy

relationships, the theory is not as suitable for predicting which types of love are unhealthy and

why they are unhealthy.

Page 7

Love in Contemporary Psychology

471

A third problematic feature of Sternberg’s triangular theory is that the three proposed com-

ponents appear to overlap significantly. Marston et al. (1998), for example, found six ways of

experiencing intimacy (openness, sexual intimacy, affection, supportiveness, togetherness, and

quiet company), two ways of experiencing passion (romance and sexual intimacy), and five ways

of experiencing commitment (supportiveness, expressions of love, fidelity, expressions of com-

mitment, and consideration and devotion). The overlap of the factors that constitute the three

corners of Sternberg’s triangle make these components questionable as separate love- defining

factors (Marston et al., 1998).

Sternberg’s triangular theory of love is not the only triangular theory to be found in the

psychological literature. John Alan Lee’s (1973) color wheel theory of love is in some respects

similar to Sternberg’s triangular theory. Lee takes his nine types of love to be composed out of

the three components: storge, eros, and ludus. ‘Storge’ means commitment or attachment. This

love style amounts to a kind of brotherly love or emotionally bland romantic love. ‘Eros’ means

passion. However, as Shaver and Hazan point out, Lee takes it to denote a kind of love charac-

teristic of a securely attached person in a secure relationship. ‘Ludus’ means play or having fun.

A person with this love style is exhibiting a pattern of traits and behaviors characteristic of the

avoidant individual.

The three basic love ingredients generate what Lee calls the secondary love styles. There are

three main compounds. Mania, which is composed of eros and ludus, is a kind of obsessive love,

which involves a strong desire to be with the other person with or without commitment.

Pragma, which is composed of ludus and storge, is a convenient type of love. It is based on

practicality and is normally the result of a decision to be together. Agape, which has the basic

components storge and eros, is self- sacrificing love, a form of altruism directed toward the

partner. This love style is manifested in a desire to serve the other person and make him or her

happy.

Lee’s theory predates Sternberg’s model and appeared in print simultaneously with some of

the first publications on attachment. It is interesting, then, that three of the love styles corres-

pond to secure attachment, anxious attachment, and avoidant attachment. The additional com-

plications of the theory, however, do not seem to add much to attachment theory or Sternberg’s

simpler model.

Love as Attachment

How our love is manifested is a function of our attachment style and our personality. Bowlby

described attachment as an emotional bond that impacts behavior ‘from the cradle to the grave’

(Bowlby, 1977: 203).3 How we bond with caregivers during early childhood affects how we

behave in relationships, how in touch we are with our emotions, and how much we will allow

ourselves to love others on a conscious level. The early attachment processes lead to a particular

mental model of relationships that continues to shape our interactions with other people as we

mature and that predicts how we will interact with romantic partners.

People with a secure attachment style maintain a healthy proximity to other people. They

are not afraid of closeness and intimacy, and they do not depend on it in a pathological way.

People with an insecure attachment style, on the other hand, avoid closeness with others or their

whole existence depends on it.

Attachment theory was first developed as a theory of how children respond to different

parental behaviors and how this response pattern affects their relationships later in life. Bowlby

argued that in a healthy environment a bonding process occurs between child and caregiver

during the first five to six years of the child’s life. The caregiver is in a position to recognize and

Page 8

Berit Brogaard

472

satisfy the child’s emotional needs. When adequate attachment between child and caregiver is

lacking, the child grows up with an impaired ability to trust that the world is a safe place, and

that others will take good care of him or her. Childhood abandonment, unpredictable parental

behavior, unrealistic parent expectations, and physical, verbal, or emotional abuse teach children

that their environment is not a safe place and that the people they encounter cannot be

trusted.

Children who are abandoned, neglected, or mistreated will inevitably experiment with

different ways of coping with the psychic wounds and lack of security. Whatever is most effective

influences what sort of attachment style they develop. One youngster may restore some kind of

equilibrium by continually seeking the caregiver’s attention and approval. Children in this cat-

egory develop an anxious/preoccupied attachment style—what is also known as a ‘resistant’ or

‘ambivalent’ attachment style. If, however, the initial attempts to restore equilibrium do not

work, the child will eventually disengage from the external world and retreat into his or her

own mind. They will learn that keeping their thoughts and feelings to themselves leads to the

least amount of anguish and pain. Children in this category develop an avoidant attachment style

(Bowlby, 1973; Ainsworth et al., 1978).

The anxious/preoccupied attachment style carries with it a ‘a tendency to make excessive

demands on others and to be anxious and clingy when they are not met’ (Bowlby, 1973: 14).

Anxiously attached individuals are anxious about and preoccupied with long- term commitment

and the availability of their partners. They may also continually experience an unfulfilled need

for mutuality, intimacy, and reciprocity regardless of how available and committed their

partner is.

Anxiously attached people furthermore become very anxious when facing separation and

during separation from the partner (Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Fraley & Shaver, 1998). Yet they

tend to behave in paradoxical ways upon reunion with the partner or after their needs are met.

Their feeling that the partner abandoned them triggers angry protests directed at the partner or

angry withdrawal from the partner when the partner eventually attends to them. A similarly

negative response can be seen in connection with relationship conflict, which causes the anx-

iously attached individual to have a more negative attitude toward the partner and the relation-

ship (Simpson et al., 1996).

Immature, anxiously attached individuals tend to become compulsive care- seekers, wanting

their partner to pamper them and take care of them (Schaffer, 1993). In successful cases where

the care- seeker’s excessive needs are taken care of, this results in a unilateral relationship that

provides the care- seeker with support, approval, and attention without any expectation that he

or she will show any concern or care for the caregiver. If the care- seeking goal is frustrated by

a person who purposely or inadvertently fails to take care of the care- seeker’s excessive needs,

the care- seeker is likely to lash out with angry insults, passive- aggressive behavior, or angry

withdrawal from the partner until the partner gives him or her undivided attention and fulfill-

ment of his or her needs.

It is often overlooked that a preoccupied- anxiously attached individual can possess narcissistic

traits. However, the preoccupied- anxiously attached care- seeker is an excellent example of an

extremely narcissistic person. Conversations will tend to be focused mostly on their needs. Like

a child, they will willingly participate in activities only when they are convenient and entertain-

ing for them. Excessive care- seeking can be an underlying cause of attention- seeking disorders

like hypochondria, histrionic personality disorder, and borderline personality disorder (Widiger

& Frances, 1985).

Whereas immature anxiously attached individuals are obsessively seeking care, more mature,

anxiously attached individuals may become compulsive caregivers, seeking attachment by caring

Page 9

Love in Contemporary Psychology

473

excessively for a parent, child or partner (Bowlby, 1977; Schaffer, 1993; Blatt & Levy, 2003:

135). In this scenario, the anxiously attached person assumes the role of the excessively, care-

giving parent in order to maintain the illusion of true mutuality and unity—the sublime goal of

their existence. When a parent assumes this role in his or her relationship to a child, this can turn

into a form of constant hovering over the child, also known as ‘helicopter parenting’ (van Ingen

et al., 2015).

The second type of insecure attachment is the avoidant attachment style. People who are

avoidantly attached cannot form close romantic relationships (Bowlby, 1973: 14). They experi-

ence fear when they need to narrow down options by committing to another person, a job or a

course of action (Hatfield, 1984). They furthermore show patterns of compulsive self- reliance,

refusing to receive from others or give to others.

Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) identified two types of avoidant attachment: fearful

and dismissive. Whereas the fearfully attached is still hoping to eventually connect with a

partner yet fears approaching and connecting and pulls away out of fear, the dismissive avoid-

ant person has given up. Avoidantly attached people will likely be commitment phobic and

use small imperfections in the partner as an excuse for not getting too involved. They may

purposely distance themselves from the partner by acting ambivalently, openly flirting with

others or cheating, not listening when the partner is talking, not communicating their thoughts

or feelings, and avoiding intimacy or staying out of touch for days or weeks after an intimate

encounter.

The avoidantly attached individuals fare slightly better than the anxiously attached indi-

viduals when faced with relationship conflict (Simpson et al., 1996). Avoidant people will

attempt to avoid conflict, diverting their attention away from the conflict and attachment-

related issues. After the conflict, they are likely to behave in less warm and supportive way

toward their partner, but unlike their anxious counterpart, they do not view the partner or the

relationship in a more negative light.

Attachment is typically viewed as distinct from love. Phillip Shaver and Cindy Hazan,

however, have argued that love is best understood in terms of feelings of attachment or disposi-

tions to have those feelings (Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Shaver & Hazan, 1987; Shaver & Hazan,

1988; Shaver et al., 1988). Attachment, of course, cannot by itself constitute passionate love.

Shaver and Hazan adopt a triangular theory of love. Love, they say, is composed of feelings of

or dispositions to feel attachment, a desire to engage in caregiving and feelings of or dispositions

to feel sexual attraction.4

Although there are three components to passionate secure love, the most basic of the three

emotions is the feeling of or disposition to feel attachment. The attachment component is a

complex emotion, which involves a multiplicity of other emotions, for instance euphoria, joy,

affection, security, intimacy, trust, fear, anger, resentment, sadness, emotional pain, disappoint-

ment, and jealousy. The other two components of passionate, secure love are influenced by the

individual’s attachment pattern, which in turns influences how the individual feels about

attachment.

People who are securely attached tend to be in love relationships that have all three com-

ponents. Avoidant individuals, by contrast, often do not have the capacity for caregiving. Nor

do they show any interest in caregiving. They also fail to associate sexual behavior with intimacy

and are more likely to have casual, non- committal sexual relationships than committed

relationships.

Anxiously attached individuals score much higher on the caregiving components. They are

either compulsive care- seekers or compulsive caregivers or both. Their sexual relationships tend

to be a means to satisfy unmet needs for security. They often come across as desperate for love.

Page 10

Berit Brogaard

474

In their relationships they are likely to be highly jealous and obsessed with their partner as a

result of their constant fear of abandonment.

Love understood partially in terms of feelings of attachment has an advantage over other

approaches to love. The attachment- theoretical framework forms a unified ‘framework for

understanding love, loneliness, and grief at different points in the life cycle’ (Hazan & Shaver,

1987: 511). It furthermore provides a unified account of what distinguishes healthy from

unhealthy forms of love. It is noteworthy that the unhealthy forms of love are cases in which the

emotions that an individual experiences do not match the object of her love. Compulsive care-

seekers, compulsive caregivers, and avoidant individuals typically do not have a loving response

that matches that of their partners. Compulsive caregivers love too much, whereas compulsive

care- seekers and avoidant individuals love too little. So, in extreme cases, both kinds of love are

unhealthy (or irrational).

Moreover, the love experienced by anxiously attached individuals is very often fueled by an

idealization of the beloved. So, the love misrepresents and hence is unhealthy (or irrational) for

that reason as well. Of course, one can imagine relationships between two avoidant individuals

where the loving responses of each partner match the other person’s loving responses perfectly.

This form of love would not strictly speaking be unhealthy and likely is not distressing to the

partners. But such cases are merely hypothetical.

Love and Psychoanalysis

Love has been at the heart of psychoanalysis since its conception. What distinguishes the psy-

choanalytic approach to love from the classical psychological approach is, as Bergmann puts it,

‘the awareness of the link between adult love and love in infancy’ (Bergmann, 1988: 668–669).

Most contemporary psychoanalytic approaches are expansions of Sigmund Freud’s theories of

love. Freud developed two psychoanalytic theories of love (Bergmann, 1988).5 One is the

theory that love and sexuality are initially combined when the ‘child is sucking at his mother’s

breast. The finding of the love object is in fact a refinding’ (Freud, 1905: 222). This phase is also

known as the ‘oral phase’ of the child’s psychosexual development (0–1 years of age). This phase

is followed by the anal phase (1–3 years of age) and the phallic or oedipal phase (3–6 years).

During latency (6–12 years of age) the child learns to repress the sexual component of his or her

love for his parents. During adolescence (or the genital phase; 12+ years of age), the sexual

impulses reemerge, and if the other stages have been resolved successfully, he or she can enter a

loving sexual relationship with a partner. The individual’s capacity to love (also known as

‘genital love’) and engage in a healthy love relationship depends on his or her ability to recom-

bine the capacity for tender love with the re- emerging sexuality. This, however, requires that

the individual has fully separated from the parents. Otherwise, the individual will experience the

beloved merely as a corrected version of a parent (Bergmann, 1988; Herzog, 2005).

Freud’s second theory followed his discovery of narcissism. On the second theory, the

separation from the parent is required for us to be able to experience love but it is not suffi-

cient. We fall in love with people that are mirror images of our ideal self. Love completes our

deficient narcissist selves. When the love is reciprocated, the tension between self and other

is eliminated and the lover experiences a relief from the freedom from envy of the other per-

son’s qualities and abilities. This leads to the characteristic feeling of reward in the presence of

the beloved as well as an idealization of the beloved. This second theory shares core elements

in common with Aron and Aron’s (1986) self- expansion theory, which also predicts that we

fall in love with people who complement us and who can trigger a feeling of one’s own self

being expanded.

Page 11

Love in Contemporary Psychology

475

More recent psychoanalytic approaches to love have become increasingly desexualized (Green,

1995; Stein, 1998a, 1998b), bringing the field closer to attachment theory (Fonagy & Target,

2007; Blatt & Levy, 2003). The sexual phrases inherent to psychoanalytic theory are now primarily

thought of as metaphors for the dynamic between the individual and her parents or later a partner.

Like attachment theory, modern psychoanalysis also predicts two fundamental ways of being inse-

curely attached to others (Blatt, 1995; Blatt & Blass, 1990). A fundamental polarity in psychoana-

lytic theory is that between unity and agency, or relatedness and self- sufficiency (Blatt & Levy,

2003). The anxiously attached individual seeks to preserve unity and prevent loneliness and alien-

ation, whereas the avoidantly attached person seeks to preserve agency, individuality, and personal

autonomy (Balint, 1959; Blatt, 1999; Shor & Sanville, 1978). Healthy love requires that one main-

tains a healthy balance between unity and agency, or relatedness and self- sufficiency.

In the beginning obsessive stages of love relationships in which the love is mutual, the lovers

seek an unhealthy level of unity and relatedness (Balint, 1959; Blatt, 1999; Shor & Sanville,

1978). Only when the love matures and neurochemical and hormones return to normal can

lovers hope to retrieve a balance between unity and agency. This, however, is also the point at

which lovers may go too far in the other direction and seek to be self- sufficient and express their

own agency without concern for the other. Many mistake the shift in hormones and neuro-

chemicals that are natural in healthy, long- lasting love relationships for a sudden absence of love.

If a person is used to the obsessive feelings of being in love and then suddenly feels nothing but

occasional closeness and sexual attraction, he or she is bound to think that something is wrong

with the relationship. A natural reaction to that feeling is to seek self- expansion elsewhere, be it

through a new lover, a new self- expanding activity, or a renewed dedication to work. This type

of behavior is, in fact, predictable in avoidant individuals, who are more likely never to fall in

love or to experience only low- intensity love (Feeney & Noller, 1990).

When attachment grows too insecure especially in childhood, it can lead to pathopsychology

(Widiger & Frances, 1985). An anxious attachment style in early childhood is a predictor of dra-

matic personality disorders such as histrionic, borderline, and dependent personality disorder

later in life, whereas an avoidant attachment style in early childhood is a predictor of schizotypal,

schizoid, narcissistic, antisocial, and avoidant personality disorder later in life (West et al., 1994;

Blatt & Levy, 2003). But being insecurely attached to one or more partners in adulthood can

also give rise to markers of pathopsychology. Being abandoned by several consecutive partners

may push an individual toward a more insecure attachment style, which together with genetic

dispositions is a predictor of psychopathology (West et al., 1994).

Securely attached lovers, who manage to find the right balance between relatedness and self-

sufficiency, have the capacity to establish mature and mutually satisfying interpersonal relation-

ships within which they can explore new activities and develop their own sense of self (Blatt,

1995). The securely attached lover respects the other person’s need for alone time while setting

aside time to connect with the other person, thereby giving both parties the opportunity to

experience both independence and bonding.

Conclusion

I have argued that the main predictors of why we fall in love in the first place are that (1) we are

open to meeting a new lover or romantic partner, (2) we meet another person who provides the

potential for an expansion of ourselves, and (3) the person or the circumstances in which we

meet the person destabilizes our mood and pleasure chemicals, which generates a kind of

obsessive- compulsive tendency in us. While these factors can account for why people fall in love

in the first place, they do not predict why romantic love lasts. For romantic love to last there has

Page 12

Berit Brogaard

476

to be feelings of or dispositions to feel familiarity, attachment, and similarity of attitudes and core

values. These feelings or dispositions correspond to more stable mood and pleasure chemicals

and an increase in attachment and bonding chemicals.

Attachment theory, I have argued, appears to have the greatest potential for providing a

plausible account of what love is as well as the individual differences in our capacity to love

other people in a healthy way. On the view of love proposed by attachment theorists, healthy

love is an emotion that consists of feelings of or dispositions to feel attachment, a desire to

engage in caregiving and feelings of or a disposition to feel sexual attraction. Unhealthy love

typically involves abnormal changes to the attachment or caregiving systems, which can be a

result of early parent–child interactions or interactions with friends, family, and partners in rela-

tionships later in life.6

Notes

1 Psychologist Paul Ekman originally argued that there were six basic emotions (joy, surprise, sadness, anger,

fear, and disgust). See, e.g., Ekman, P. & Friesen, W.V. (1971). “Constants across cultures in the face and

emotion,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17: 124–129. Contempt, he said, was a mixture of

anger and disgust. However, he later included contempt (or “scorn”) among the basic emotions on the

grounds that it is associated with a universally recognizable facial expression. Ekman, P. & Heider, K.G.

(1988). “The universality of contempt expression: A replication,” Motivation and Emotion, 12: 303–308.

2 This approach is a natural extension of James’ feeling theory. For discussion, see, for example, Prinz

(2004) and Brogaard (2015).

3 For more in- depth discussion, see Wonderly (this volume).

4 For simplicity’s sake I will treat desires as kinds of emotions, even though desires are ontologically

different from emotions (see Brogaard, 2015).

5 Bergmann (1988) argues that Freud has three theories. But the one outlined in ‘Instincts and Their

Vicissitudes’ is so lacking in content that it hardly counts as a theory. Freud merely observes that love

cannot be explained as a sexual instinct but resides in the relationship between the beloved and the

‘total ego’ (Freud, 1914).

6 For comments on an earlier version of this chapter I am grateful to Adrienne Martin and audiences at

UMSL and the University of Miami.

References

Ainsworth, M.D., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of Attachment: A Psychological Study of

the Strange Situation, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Acevedo, B.P. & Aron, A. (2009). “Does a Long- Term Relationship Kill Romantic Love?” General Psych-

ology, 13(1): 59–65.

Aron, A. & Aron, E.N. (1986). Love and the Expansion of Self: Understanding Attraction and Satisfaction, New

York: Hemisphere Publishing Corp/Harper & Row.

Aron, E.N. & Aron, A. (1996). “Love and Expansion of the Self: The State of the Model,” Personal Rela-

tionships 3(1): 45–58.

Aron, A., Dutton, D.G., Aron, E.N., & Iverson, A. (1989). “Experiences of Falling in Love,” Journal of

Social and Personal Relationships, August 6, 3: 243–257.

Aron, A., Fisher, H., Mashek, D.J., Strong, G., Haifang, Li H., & Brown, L.L. (2005). “Reward, Motiva-

tion, and Emotion Systems Associated with Early- Stage Intense Romantic Love,” Journal of Neuro-

physiology 94(1): 327–337.

Balint, M. (1959). Thrills and Repression, London: Hogarth Press.

Bartholomew, K. & Horowitz, L.M. (1991). “Attachment Styles Among Young Adults: A Test of a Four-

Category Model,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2): 226–244.

Bergmann, M.S. (1988). “Freud’s Three Theories of Love in the Light of Later Developments,” Journal of

the Amer ican Psychoanalytic Association, 36(3): 653–672.

Berscheid, E. & Walster, E. (1974). “A Little Bit of Love,” in T. Huston (Ed.), Foundations of Interpersonal

Attraction, New York: Academic Press, pp. 355–381.

Page 13

Love in Contemporary Psychology

477

Blatt, S.J. (1995). “Representational Structures in Psychopathology,” in Rochester Symposium on Develop-

mental Psychopathology, Vol. 6: Emotion, Cognition, and Representation, ed. D. Cicchetti & S. Toth,

Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, pp. 1–33.

Blatt, S.J. (1999). “Personality Factors in the Brief Treatment of Depression: Further Analyses of the

NIMH Sponsored Treatment for Depression Collaborative Research Program,” in Psychotherapy

Indications and Outcomes, ed. D.S. Janowsky. Washington, DC: Amer ican Psychiatric Press,

pp. 23–45.

Blatt, S.J. & Blass, R.B. (1990). “Attachment and Separateness: A Dialectic Model of the Products and

Processes of Psychological Development,” The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 45: 107–127.

Blatt, S.J. & Levy, K.N. (2003). “Attachment Theory, Psychoanalysis, Personality Development, and

Psychopathology”, Journal Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 23(1): 102–150.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and Loss, Vol. 2: Separation, Anxiety, and Anger, New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1977). “The Making and Breaking of Affectional Bonds, 1: Etiology and Psychopathology in

Light of Attachment Theory,” British Journal of Psychiatry, 130: 201–210.

Brogaard, B. (2015). On Romantic Love: Simple Truths About a Complex Emotion, New York: Oxford

University Press.

Dutton, D.G. & Aron, A.P. (1974). “Some Evidence for Heightened Sexual Attraction Under Conditions

of High Anxiety,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(4): 510–517.

Ekman, P. & Friesen, W.V. (1971). “Constants Across Cultures in the Face and Emotion,” Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 17: 124–129.

Ekman, P. & Heider, K.G. (1988). “The Universality of Contempt Expression: A Replication,” Motivation

and Emotion, 12: 303–308.

Feeney, J.A. & Noller, P. (1990). “Attachment Style as a Predictor of Adult Romantic Relationships”,

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(2): 281–291.

Fehr, B. & Russell, J.A. (1984). “Concept of Emotion Viewed from a Prototype Perspective,” Journal of

Experimental Psychology: General, 113: 464–486.

Fonagy, P. & Target, M. (2007). “The Rooting of the Mind in the Body: New Links Between Attachment

Theory and Psychoanalytic Thought,” Journal of the Amer ican Psychoanalytic Association, 55(2): 411–456.

Fraley, R.C. & Shaver, P.R. (1998). “Airport Separations: A Naturalistic Study of Adult Attachment

Dynamics in Separating Couples,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75: 1198–1212.

Freud, S. (1905). Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality, Standard Edition 7, pp. 136–243.

Freud, S. (1914). On Narcissism: An Introduction, Standard Edition 14: 73–102.

Freud, S. (2015). “Instincts and Their Vicissitudes,” Standard Edition 14: 117–140.

Gonzaga, G.C., Turner, R.A., Keltner, D., Campos, B., & Altemus, M. (2006). “Romantic Love and

Sexual Desire in Close Relationships,” Emotion, 6(2): 163–179.

Green, A. (1995). “Has Sexuality Anything to Do with Psychoanalysis?” International Journal of Psycho-

analysis, 76: 871–883.

Hatfield, E. (1984). “The Dangers of Intimacy,” in V. Derlaga (Ed.), Communication, Intimacy and Close

Relationships, New York: Praeger, pp. 207–220.

Hazan, C. & Shaver, P. (1987). “Romantic Love Conceptualized as an Attachment Process,” Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3): 511–524.

Herzog, J.M. (2005). “Triadic Reality and the Capacity to Love,” The Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 74(4):

1029–1052.

Kolodny, N. (2003). “Love as Valuing a Relationship,” Philosophical Review, 112: 135–189.

Lee, J.A. (1973). Colours of Love: An Exploration of the Ways of Loving, Toronto: New Press.

Lemieux, R. & Hale, J.L. (2002). “Cross- Sectional Analysis of Intimacy, Passion, and Commitment: Testing

the Assumptions of the Triangular Theory of Love,” Psychological Reports, 90(3 Pt 1): 1009–1014.

Madey, S.F. & Rodgers, L. (2009). “The Effect of Attachment and Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love

on Relationship Satisfaction,” Individual Differences Research, 7(2): 76–84.

Marazziti, D., Akiskal, H.S., Rossi, A., & Cassano, G.B. (1999). “Alteration of the Platelet Serotonin

Transporter in Romantic Love,” Psychological Medicine, 29(3): 741–745.

Marston, P.J., Hecht, M.L., Manke, M.L., McDaniel, S., & Reeder, H. (1998). “The Subjective Experi-

ence of Intimacy, Passion, and Commitment in Heterosexual Loving Relationships,” Personal Relation-

ships, 5(1): 15–30.

Prinz, J. (2004). Gut Reactions: A Perceptual Theory of Emotion, New York: Oxford University Press.

Rosch, E.H. (1978). “Principles of Categorization,” in E.H. Rosch & B.B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and

Categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 27–48.

Page 14

Berit Brogaard

478

Schaffer, C.E. (1993). The Role of Attachment in the Experience and Regulation of Affect, doctoral dissertation,

New Haven, CT: Yale University.

Shaver, P. & Hazan, C. (1987). “Being Lonely, Falling in Love: Perspectives from Attachment Theory,”

Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 2(2, Pt 2): 105–124.

Shaver, P., Schwartz, J., Kirson, D., & O’Connor, C. (1987). “Emotion Knowledge: Further Explorations

of a Prototype Approach,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52: 1061–1086.

Shaver, P.R. & Hazan, C. (1988). “A Biased Overview of the Study of Love,” Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships, 5(4): 473–501.

Shaver, P.R., Hazan, C., & Bradshaw, D. (1988). “Love as Attachment: The Integration of Three Behavi-

oral Systems,” in R.J. Sternberg & M.L. Barnes (Eds.), The Psychology of Love. New Haven, CT: Yale

University Press, pp. 68–99.

Shaver, P.R., Morgan, H.J., & Wu, S. (1996). “Is Love a ‘Basic’ Emotion?,” Personal Relationships, 3(1):

81–96.

Shor, J. & Sanville, J. (1978). Illusions in Loving: A Psychoanalytic Approach to Intimacy and Autonomy, Los

Angeles, CA: Double Helix.

Simpson, J.A., Rholes, W.S., & Phillips, D. (1996). “Conflict in Close Relationships: An Attachment Per-

spective,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(5): 899–914.

Stein, R. (1998a). “The Enigmatic Dimension of Sexual Experience: The ‘Otherness’ of Sexuality and

Primal Seduction,” Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 67: 594–625.

Stein, R. (1998b). “The Poignant, the Excessive and the Enigmatic in Sexuality,” International Journal of

Psychoanalysis, 79: 253–268.

Sternberg, R.J. (1986). “A Triangular Theory of Love,” Psychological Review, 93(2): 119–135.

Sternberg, R.J. (1998). Cupid’s Arrow: The Course of Love through Time, London: Cambridge University

Press.

van Ingen, D.J., Freiheit, S.R., Steinfeldt, J.A., Moore, L.L., Wimer, D.J., Knutt, A.D., Scapinello, S., &

Roberts, A. (2015). “Helicopter Parenting: The Effect of an Overbearing Caregiving Style on Peer

Attachment and Self- Efficacy,” Journal of College Counseling, 18(1): 7–20.

West, M., Rose, M., & Sheldon- Keller, A. (1994). “Assessment of Patterns of Insecure Attachment in

Adults and Application to Dependent and Schizoid Personality Disorders,” Journal of Personality Dis-

orders, 8(3): 249–256.

Widiger, T.A. & Frances, A. (1985). “The DSM- III Personality Disorders: Perspectives from Psychology,”

Archives of General Psychiatry, 42: 615–623.

Zeki, S. (2007). “The Neurobiology of Love,” FEBS Letters, 581(14): 2575–2579.