what mental disorder causes one to betray family and be loyal to enemy

Introduction

Love and hate are important homo affects that are of long-standing involvement in psychology. Increasingly, empirical inquiry has been carried out on the human relationship between dear and hate. Withal, traditional psychological theories accept mainly focused on dearest, peculiarly romantic love. These include Sternberg'due south (1986) triangular theory of dearest and the three-phase model of love (Fisher, 1989; Fisher et al., 2006). Love has been divers as an action (Swensen, 1972), mental attitude (Rubin, 1970), experience (Skolnick, 1978), and even as a prototypical emotion (Fehr and Russell, 1991; Mail, 2002; Sober, 2002; Wyschogrod, 2002). Collectively, these definitions propose that dearest is a multi-faced phenomenon (Ekman, 1972; Izard, 1977; Tomkins, 1984). Hate, inside the context of a romantic relationship, arises mainly from a relational betrayal. Researchers have proposed a concept related to romantic detest, romantic jealousy, which describes the negative attitudes, anger, and fear associated with having a human relationship partner (Yoshimura, 2004).

Dear and hate are related to each other in a circuitous manner; the methodological approaches used by previous researchers have express effectiveness in exploring the intricate relationship betwixt dearest and detest. In improver, there has been trivial research on the psychological mechanisms that could explicate the interrelations between dear and hate. Therefore, our study investigates how these 2 affects are related. To pursue such a research objective, one must consider how best to induce varying levels of feelings of love.

Previous studies have plant that attraction is a crucial condition for the evolution of romantic beloved (Cutler et al., 1998; Braxton-Davis, 2010; Miller and Maner, 2010). Similarity, rather than complementarity, plays a key part in attraction (Berscheid and Reis, 1998; Luo and Klohnen, 2005; Hudson et al., 2014). Many aspects of similarity accept been studied in relation to attraction. In the current report, nosotros focused on similarity in ideologies. That is, persons with similar ideologies (divers here in terms of values and interests) tend to course longer lasting and more than harmonious relationships (Buunk and Bosman, 1986; Lemay and Clark, 2008). Ideological similarity too implies commonalities in behaviors which further contribute to common attraction in the context of romantic love (Schafer and Keith, 1990). From this perspective, similarity may be a key factor that influences the degree of dear. In addition, researchers found that differences in excellence levels, such equally those relating to ability and achievement, between partners would also be an of import factor influencing romantic relationships (Conroy-Beam et al., 2016).

In the present study, nosotros manipulated the level of similarity and the level of excellence to induce different levels of honey. That is, we meantime varied the levels of similarity and excellence of unlike targets. Nosotros explored whether participants felt stronger love for a target who was more similar to themselves when the targets and participants were of the aforementioned level of excellence. Additionally, we were besides interested in whether participants have different emotional reactions toward dissimilar target persons in the context of romantic dear and hate.

We examined two research questions in the electric current research. Kickoff, would there be greater feelings of love between two persons if they were more similar to each other? Second, nether certain conditions, does a person'south love generate a respective level of hate when negative events occurred to his or her romantic partner?

In this study, we implemented a paradigm similar to what has been used in previous enquiry (Takahashi et al., 2009), and adapted the scenario method to induce love and hate. The characters in the scenario included one protagonist and three targets. Participants read the scenario and imagined that they were the protagonist and were in a romantic human relationship with one of the target. We induced unlike levels of love by manipulating the caste of similarity (due east.chiliad., values and interests) and excellence (east.g., power and achievements) between the protagonist and target persons in the vignettes. We also induced hate using vignettes that showed target persons betraying the protagonist, such as going on dates or having affairs with people of the opposite-sex. We hypothesized that greater similarity betwixt a participant (protagonist) and a target would exist associated with greater feelings of beloved, and that when negative events occur with the protagonist'due south romantic partner, the target would be associated with greater feelings of hate.

Materials and Methods

Participants

Sixty volunteers, recruited from unlike colleges, participated in the experiment. One participant had misunderstood the instructions and was thus excluded from the analyses. As a result, the last studied sample consists of 59 participants (30 men, 29 women, age M = 20.ii years, SD = i.5). None of the participants reported whatever previous diagnoses of psychiatric or neurological illnesses. Roughly 18% of the participants said they were looking for a relationship, 33% were in a relationship, 24% had experienced a break-up, and the remaining 25% had not been in whatsoever relationships. The study was canonical by the Ethics Committee of the School of Psychology at South China Normal University. Each participant had provided written informed consent prior to participating in the experiment. They were also given small tokens of appreciation for their participation.

Materials

The vignettes used in the present experimental paradigm were adapted from a previous report that investigated the neural correlates of envy and schadenfreude (Takahashi et al., 2009). The vignettes were modified to fit the present romantic love context, according to the previous definitions of love (Hatfield and Sprecher, 1986; Schafer and Keith, 1990). The people in the vignettes included one protagonist and three targets (i.e., targets A, B, and C) corresponding to three manipulated atmospheric condition (see Supplementary Textile). Participants were asked to study and understand the vignettes thoroughly and to imagine themselves as the protagonist in the vignettes. Target A was described as a person of equal level of excellence and high similarity to the protagonist, target B as equal level of excellence and depression similarity to the protagonist, and target C as depression level of excellence and low similarity to the protagonist (target C). See Supplementary Table S1 for details.

Questionnaire

We used the xv-item Passionate Honey Scale (PLS; Hatfield and Sprecher, 1998) to measure the degree of love evoked by each participant in the vignettes. An example of an particular in the PLS is, "I would rather exist with him/her than anyone else…" Participants rated each item according to the caste of passionate dear they perceived (ane = none; 9 = extremely passionate love). The PLS is suitable for individuals who are and are not in a human relationship, and for individuals who have never been in a romantic human relationship (Hatfield and Sprecher, 1986; Aron et al., 2005). The reliability and validity of this calibration take been established in previous studies (Hatfield and Sprecher, 1986; Fehr, 1988; Hendrick and Hendrick, 1989; Fehr and Russell, 1991). Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.94 in the present study.

Procedures

Learning Materials

The experiment consisted of two parts. We induced feelings of love toward the targets in the participants (the protagonists) in Office 1 (Figure 1), and feelings of hate toward the targets in Function 2 (Effigy ii).

Figure one. Part 1 consisted of three phases: studying the materials, rating on the figurer, and completing the PLS. This figure presents a schematic depiction of the stimuli and rating task design of Part 1 (love). Showtime, a fixation cross pilus was presented for 1000 ms followed by the experimental stimuli (Lover A, Lover B, and Lover C) that were displayed for 2000 ms or until response. The top line in each stimuli-containing rectangle indicated a target person, the heart line indicated the domain of comparing (excellence and similarity), and the lesser line indicated the specific traits in these two domains.

FIGURE ii. Part 2 consisted of two phases: rating on the figurer and completing the PLS. This effigy presents a schematic depiction of the stimuli and rating chore blueprint of Role 2 (hate). Specific traits of Lover A, Lover B, and Lover C were presented as in Part one. Each trait was followed by a subsequent negative event, which was presented for 2000 ms or until response. The top line indicated a target person, and the bottom line indicated a negative issue. A 1000 ms inter-stimulus interval was interleaved between each trait and negative event.

Showtime, participants were asked to read a story and imagine that they were the protagonist (see Supplementary Material). Next, the participants were asked to recollect relevant key details about themselves past responding to sentences beginning with "I am…" Following this, participants were instructed to read three vignettes describing iii different situations. Each vignette involved the protagonist and three targets. Participants were asked to think the information relating to each target through gratuitous recall. Participants were then asked to imagine that they were in a romantic relationship with the target.

Ratings and Measurements

We used E-Prime 2.0 to present the items in a random club [we included 15 core items from each vignette into the reading materials of each target (see Supplementary Table S1)]. After the participants studied the materials, they completed the rating task on the computer and then completed the PLS in both Office 1 and Part ii. Participants gave ane love score per item per target person in Part 1 and one hate score per negative event per target person in Part 2, too as two PLS scores before and after the negative events.

In Part i, we asked participants to imagine themselves as the protagonist when reading the scenario, and then rate each trait presented in terms of how much dear they felt toward a target based on the presented features of the iii targets (i = none; vi = extreme love). Afterwards that, we used the PLS to mensurate participants' feelings of love with the iii targets.

In Office two of the experiment, the background characteristics of A, B, and C were unchanged; nonetheless, nosotros created vignettes in which the targets betrayed the protagonist, for example past having an affair with someone of the contrary sex activity (see the negative events in Supplementary Table S1). Participants were then asked to rate how much hate they felt toward A, B, and C (1 = none; half dozen = extreme detest). Upon completion of Part 2, participants completed the PLS again to assess their feelings of dearest toward the three targets.

Analysis

We used several analyses to test our hypotheses. The scores from dearest ratings, hate ratings, and the PLS items were averaged within subjects prior to the analyses. Specifically, we used one-way repeated measures of analysis of variance (ANOVA) to exam for differences in participants' beloved ratings, hate ratings, and PLS scores for targets A, B, and C; these analyses were conducted for scenarios with and without betrayal (Function 1 and ii). Uncomplicated effect tests were performed when the interaction effect was significant.

Additionally, we used a 3 (target: A, B, and C) × two (fourth dimension: earlier vs. later on) ii-manner repeated measures ANOVA to analyze the caste of love level perceived by the protagonist in relation to the three targets before and after the negative events. Adjacent, we used a 3 (target: A, B, and C) × two (affect: love vs. hate) two-manner repeated measures ANOVA to analyze the relationship betwixt the dear and hate scores. Tests of simple master furnishings were performed when an interaction effect was statistically significant. In add-on, we used Pearson's correlation assay to exam the correlations between scores for love and hate. Subsequently, we used partial correlations to examine the association between beloved and hate controlling for participants' gender and age.

Results

Degree of Love

Across the dissimilar conditions (targets A, B, and C), the results of the one-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed meaning differences in perceived feelings of beloved [F(2,116) = 985.710, p < 0.001, η² = 0.944]. Further analyses of the simple main effects showed that the degree of dearest toward target A (5.53 ± 0.48) was significantly higher than that of target B (iv.52 ± 0.54) [F(ane,58) = 177.796, p < 0.001, η^two = 0.754], and the degree of love toward B was significantly higher than that of target C (1.66 ± 0.45) [F(1,58) = 977.526, p < 0.001, η^two = 0.944].

Additionally, across the different targets, the results of the one-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed significant differences in participants' PLS scores of the iii targets [F(two,116) = 450.352, p < 0.001, η² = 0.886]. Further analyses of the simple main furnishings showed that the degree of passionate love toward target A (109.73 ± 11.80) was significantly higher than that of target B (93.46 ± fourteen.59) [F(1,58) = threescore.263, p < 0.001, η² = 0.510], and the degree of passionate honey toward target B was significantly higher than that of target C (38.39 ± 20.xl) [F(one,58) = 519.537, p < 0.001, η² = 0.900].

Caste of Hate

Across the different targets, the results of the one-manner repeated measures ANOVA revealed pregnant differences in the degree of detest after the negative outcome manipulation [F(two,116) = 229.64, p < 0.001, ηⁱⁱ = 0.798]. Further analyses of the simple main effects showed that the caste of hate toward target A (5.25 ± 0.57) was significantly higher than that of target B (4.84 ± 0.55) [F(1,58) = 34.768, p < 0.001, η² = 0.375], and the degree of hate toward target B was significantly higher than that of target C (3.02 ± 0.98) [F(i,58) = 216.921, p < 0.001, ηⁱⁱ = 0.789].

Beyond the unlike targets, the results of the one-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed significant differences of the overall PLS scores after the negative event manipulation [F(two,116) = 316.544, p < 0.001, η^two = 0.845]. Farther analyses of the unproblematic main effects showed that the PLS score for target A (88.95 ± 22.00) was significantly higher than that of target B (71.97 ± 21.83) [F(ane,58) = 63.119, p < 0.001, η² = 0.521], and the score for target B was significantly higher than that of target C (27.81 ± 14.39) [F(1,58) = 333.357, p < 0.001, η^two = 0.852].

The 3 (targets: A, B, C) × 2 (time: before vs. after) ii-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant target × time interaction [F(ii,116) = x.432, p < 0.001, η² = 0.152] on PLS scores. Further simple principal effect analyses revealed that later on the negative event manipulation, participants' love scores for target A was significantly lower than earlier the manipulation [A-Before: 109.73 ± eleven.fourscore, A-After: 88.95 ± 22.00; F(ane,58) = 74.822, p < 0.001, η² = 0.560]. Similarly, participants' honey scores for target B [B-Before: 93.46 ± 14.59, B-Afterward: 71.97 ± 21.83; F(1,58) = 68.179, p < 0.001, η² = 0.540] and target C were also significantly lower than before the manipulation [C-Earlier: 38.39 ± xx.twoscore, C-After: 27.81 ± 14.39; F(1,58) = 27.842, p < 0.001, ηⁱⁱ = 0.324].

Love and Hate

The three (targets: A, B, C) × 2 (affect: love vs. hate) two-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant target × affect interaction [F(ii,116) = 95.357, p < 0.001, η² = 0.622]. Further elementary effect analyses institute that participants' honey of target A was significantly higher than that of hate, even if they were betrayed by target A [A-Love: 5.53 ± 0.48, A-Hate: five.25 ± 0.57; F(one,58) = 17.889, p < 0.001, η² = 0.236]. Conversely, participants' love for target B was significantly lower than that of hate [B-Love: 4.52 ± 0.54, B-Hate: iv.84 ± 0.55; F(1,58) = 14.652, p < 0.001, η^two = 0.202]. Similarly, participants' love for target C was as well significantly lower than that of hate [C-Beloved: one.66 ± 0.45, C-Detest: 3.02 ± 0.98; F(1,58) = 102.933, p < 0.001, η² = 0.640] (Figure iii).

Effigy 3. The love and hate level of all participants in response to the 3 (targets: A, B, C) × ii (affect: love, hate) two-means repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant target × impact interaction. Error bars stand for +one standard error (SE). Participants' degree of dear for A (excellent and high similarity with the participants) was still higher than hate later on negative events occurred, just the tendency for B (excellent and moderate similarity) and C (low excellence and low similarity) is opposite.

Furthermore, the Pearson correlation analyses showed significant relationships between participants' dear and hate toward target A (r = 0.55; p < 0.001). Participants' love and hate toward target B (r = 0.29; p < 0.05). However, the correlation betwixt participants' dear and hate toward target C was not significant (r = 0.12; p > 0.05). The corresponding partial correlation analyses revealed similar results (A: r = 0.48, p < 0.001; B: r = 0.27, p < 0.05; C: r = 0.12; p > 0.05).

Word

This study used an experimental paradigm to study the relationship between romantic love and hate. The electric current study provided back up for a link between the two affects and insights into the influence of similarity in romantic relationships. We plant that people take dissimilar emotional reactions toward different target persons in the context of romantic dearest and hate. The human relationship betwixt romantic beloved and hate was revealed to be more complex than expected.

First, our results showed that feelings of love were influenced by similarity. That is, individuals, who were experimentally induced to experience feelings of beloved, felt stronger love toward someone of the opposite sex who was similar to them, thus, supporting our commencement hypothesis. Previous studies have examined whether similarity or complementarity played a more vital function in mutual attraction (Berscheid and Reis, 1998) and concluded that the former was more of import. This view has also been supported by research looking at mate preferences (Luo and Klohnen, 2005) and quality of marital relationships (Hudson et al., 2014).

Previous studies had mostly recruited couples or partners who were already in a human relationship, and in that location is little direct evidence on whether the similarity of the two individuals had a crucial function in the evolution of a romantic relationship. A recent written report (Conroy-Beam et al., 2016) reported that mate value discrepancies predicted human relationship satisfaction. To some extent, they considered the equivalence in social condition between both partners to be an important factor relating to relationship satisfaction. In our study, nevertheless, when the participants were presented with ii potential partners equal to them in excellence, participants perceived greater love for the one who was more like to themselves. Relatedly, similarity also played an important role in mate option. Our findings complemented the findings of other enquiry in this area. Individuals who were similar to each other easily formed good impressions of each other inside a short time. This finding combined with results of previous studies suggests that similarity plays a vital part in attraction, regardless of situations involving "beloved at get-go sight" or impressions based on long-term exchanges.

Second, we institute significant associations between romantic beloved and hate in the context of a romantic relationship. When presented with negative events with three different target persons, participants about hated the person whom they had loved the most previously. Therefore, love and hate are indeed related. Equally Alford (2005) proposed, hate is an imitation of love and also a blazon of human relationship with others and oneself. That is, in managing their relationships with others, people are at the same time managing themselves and their psyches (Alford, 2005). In the context of an private'southward love and hate, when the relationship ane had developed with a particular partner was destroyed, the romantic love consequently turned into hate. Peculiarly from the perspectives of young couples in romantic relationships, hate is also a reflection of love.

The relationship betwixt beloved and hate tin be explained from unlike perspectives. Romantic hate may be rooted in romantic jealousy. Previous enquiry proposed emotional jealousy and cognitive jealousy equally constituents of romantic jealousy. Emotional jealousy reflects the anger and fear of the individual in love, while cognitive jealousy mainly relates to the individual's negative mental attitude to lovers (Yoshimura, 2004). Therefore, we speculate that information technology is a lover'due south betrayal that causes anger and other negative emotions, resulting in detest. Moreover, cognitive jealousy is directly related to relationship dissatisfaction between lovers (Elphinston et al., 2013). Previous studies have also found a positive relationship betwixt romantic love and jealousy. That is, the more than ane loves a person, the more sensitive ane becomes when encountering threats to the relationship (Mathes and Severa, 1981; Orosz et al., 2015). Thus, individuals feel more than love and more hatred toward the same lover.

The observed phenomenon of "the deeper the love, the deeper the hate" may too be attributed to the perception of disinterestedness imbalance. Researchers have proposed the concept of "perception of equity" based on equity theory and state that disinterestedness can be achieved past changing ane'due south perception of investments in the relationship or its results (Walster et al., 1973). According to disinterestedness theory, disinterestedness is calculated from both the individual's inputs and the resulting outcomes (Hatfield et al., 1979). Thus, in our context, the more one loves a person, the more psychological investment one makes. However, when in that location is an imbalance betwixt the individual's inputs and outcomes, the perception of equity is lost, thus, resulting in a modify of perception between hate and love.

At the same time, our results showed a pregnant interaction between targets (A vs. B vs. C) and affects (dearest vs. hate). Farther analyses revealed that an individual's caste of honey for target A (equal excellence and loftier similarity with the protagonist) is yet higher than the degree of hate after negative event manipulation, but the results were reversed for target B (equal excellence and depression similarity with the protagonist) and target C (unequal excellence and depression similarity with the protagonist). In other words, although the three targets were associated with the aforementioned negative events, the level of hatred varied across the three targets. If, initially, the individual loved the target the well-nigh, the degree of dear is even so college than that of detest after the negative result. Notwithstanding, when the individual did not love the target as much initially, the degree of dear would be markedly lower than that of hate.

These results illustrate the complication associated with romantic dear and detest. People have dissimilar emotional reactions toward unlike target persons in the context of romantic dear and hate. For the person whom one loves the nigh or even hates, dear may nevertheless be ascendant in the context of expose. This hate is a reflection of love and a feeling of sorrow. Nevertheless, for the person one does not honey, feelings of hate are stronger than those of love. This hate perhaps has its roots in the moral dimension, which mainly concern social judgments about the quality of a person. This is why people feel such hurting upon expose in a romantic human relationship.

Graham and Clark (2006) found that individuals who expect at a relationship equally "all skillful" or "all bad" have lower self-esteem compared to others. These individuals too have long-term concerns nigh whether their partners are willing to take them in a closed relationship. The authors proffered this every bit the reason behind love and hate, and that this phenomenon could exist observed in whatever relationship. Needless to say, the complex precursors of love and hate can exist interpreted in many ways. Perhaps as some of the most ubiquitous emotions, people need to embrace and explain dear and hate objectively and rationally. Although we report the nature of love and detest from a rational indicate of view and from an emotional perspective to explicate the precursors of these 2 bones emotions, humans are emotional beings.

In summary, nosotros demand to comprehend the relationship betwixt love and hate both rationally and emotionally. If we pay close attention to hate, we can improve understand love (Tjeltveit, 2003). This idea justified united states carrying out the current study. However, at that place are three limitations to this report. Offset, fifty-fifty though we emphasized that the protagonist would be described in iii different relationships in different periods of life, this manipulation could not guarantee that participants could generate independent feelings of love for the iii target persons. Second, in order to maximize external validity of the study, we did not control for participants' current relationship status. In our time to come research, we may explore whether relationship status predicts feelings of honey and hate using this experimental paradigm. Third, the findings of the current study were also express by the manipulation of similarity between the participants and the iii targets. The use of vignettes meant that the manipulation of similarity might take partly depended on how well the participants were able to imagine themselves as the protagonist in the vignettes.

Decision

Our results supported the idea that "the deeper the dearest, the deeper the hate," and suggested similarity as a crucial factor influencing feelings of love and detest. In addition, people have different emotional reactions toward different people in the context of romantic dear and hate. For the person whom one loves or hates the most, love may still be dominant in the context of expose. However, for the person 1 does not dearest, feelings of hatred are stronger than those of love. This study likewise provided support for the relationship between romantic dear and hate, and highlighted the important function of similarity in moderating the relationship between beloved and hate.

Ethics Statement

The present study was approved by the Ethic Committee of the School of Psychology at S China Normal University. Each participant volunteered to take part in this study and provided written informed consent before the start of the experiment.

Author Contributions

WJ: written report design, data collection, information assay, and paper writing. YX and ML: study design and paper writing.

Funding

This work was supported by grants from National Social Science Foundation (14ZDB159); Project of Key Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences, MOE, (No. 16JJD190001).

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of whatsoever commercial or fiscal relationships that could be construed every bit a potential conflict of interest.

Supplementary Fabric

The Supplementary Textile for this commodity can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01940/full#supplementary-material

References

Alford, C. F. (2005). "Hate is the fake of dear," in The Psychology of Hate, ed. R. Sternberg (Washington, DC: APA), 235–254.

Google Scholar

Aron, A., Fisher, H., Mashek, D. J., Potent, Yard., Li, H., and Brown, 50. Fifty. (2005). Reward, motivation, and emotion systems associated with early on-stage intense romantic love. J. Neurophysiol. 94, 327–337. doi: 10.1152/jn.00838.2004

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Berscheid, E., and Reis, H. T. (1998). "Attraction and close relationships," in The Handbook of Social Psychology, eds D. T. Gilbert, Due south. T. Fiske, and Grand. Lindzey (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill), 193–281.

Google Scholar

Braxton-Davis, P. (2010). The social psychology of love and attraction. McNair Scholars J. 14, six–10.

Google Scholar

Conroy-Axle, D., Goetz, C. D., and Buss, D. Yard. (2016). What predicts romantic relationship satisfaction and mate memory intensity: mate preference fulfillment or mate value discrepancies? Evol. Hum. Behav. 37, 440–448. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2016.04.003

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cutler, Westward. B., Friedmann, E., and McCoy, N. L. (1998). Pheromonal influences on sociosexual behavior in men. Arch. Sex activity. Behav. 27, ane–13. doi: x.1097/00042192-199704040-00088

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ekman, P. (1972). "Universal and cultural differences in facial expressions of emotions," in Proceedings of the Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1971, ed. J. K. Cole (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press), 207–283.

Google Scholar

Elphinston, R. A., Feeney, J. A., Noller, P., Connor, J. P., and Fitzgerald, J. (2013). Romantic jealousy and relationship satisfaction: the costs of rumination. Due west. J. Commun. 77, 293–304. doi: x.1080/10570314.2013.770161

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fehr, B. (1988). Paradigm analysis of the concepts of love and commitment. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 55:557. doi: x.1037/0022-3514.55.iv.557

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Fehr, B., and Russell, J. A. (1991). The concept of love viewed from a epitome perspective. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 60:425. doi: x.1037/0022-3514.threescore.3.425

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fisher, H. Due east., Aron, A., and Brown, Fifty. 50. (2006). Romantic honey: a mammalian brain arrangement for mate choice. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 361, 2173–2186. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2006.1938

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Graham, Due south. M., and Clark, M. S. (2006). Self-esteem and organization of valenced information well-nigh others: the" Jekyll and Hyde"-ing of relationship partners. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. ninety:652. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.ninety.4.652

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hatfield, E., and Sprecher, S. (1998). "The passionate love calibration," in Handbook of Sexuality-related Measures, eds T. D. Fisher, C. G. Davis, Westward. L. Yaber, and Due south. L. Davis (Thousand Oaks, CA: Taylor & Francis), 449–451.

Google Scholar

Hatfield, E., Utne, M. 1000., and Traupmann, J. (1979). "Equity theory and intimate relationships," in Social Commutation in Developing Relationships, eds R. Burgess and T. 50. Huston (New York, NY: Academic Press), 99–133.

Google Scholar

Hendrick, C., and Hendrick, S. Due south. (1989). Research on dearest: does it measure up? J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 56:784. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.56.5.784

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hudson, N. W., Fraley, R. C., Brumbaugh, C. C., and Vicary, A. Thousand. (2014). Coregulation in romantic partners' attachment styles a longitudinal investigation. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. twoscore, 845–857. doi: 10.1177/0146167214528989

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lemay, E. P., and Clark, M. S. (2008). How the head liberates the eye: projection of communal responsiveness guides human relationship promotion. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 94, 647–671. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.94.iv.647

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mathes, E. W., and Severa, N. (1981). Jealousy, romantic love, and liking: theoretical considerations and preliminary calibration development. Psychol. Rep. 49, 23–31. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1981.49.1.23

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Orosz, G., Szekeres,Á., Kiss, Z. G., Farkas, P., and Roland-Lévy, C. (2015). Elevated romantic dearest and jealousy if relationship status is alleged on Facebook. Front. Psychol. 6:214. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00214

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mail service, Southward. G. (2002). "The tradition of agape," in Altruism and Altruistic Dearest: Science, Philosophy, eds Due south. G. Post, Fifty. G. Underwood, J. P. Schloss, and Due west. B. Hurlbut (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Google Scholar

Schafer, R. B., and Keith, P. M. (1990). Matching past weight in married couples: a life cycle perspective. J. Soc. Psychol. 130, 657–664. doi: 10.1080/00224545.1990.9922958

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Skolnick, A. (1978). The Intimate Environment: Exploring Wedlock and the Family, 2nd Edn. Boston, MA: Piddling, Dark-brown and Visitor.

Google Scholar

Sober, Eastward. (2002). "The ABCs of altruism," in Altruism and Altruistic Love, eds South. J. Mail service, L. G. Underwood, J. P. Schloss, and West. B. Hurlbut (London: Oxford University Press), 17–28.

Google Scholar

Swensen, C. H. (1972). "The beliefs of love," in Love Today, ed. H. A. Otto (New York, NY: Associated Press), 86–101.

Google Scholar

Takahashi, H., Kato, K., Matsuura, Chiliad., Mobbs, D., Suhara, T., and Okubo, Y. (2009). When your proceeds is my hurting and your pain is my gain: neural correlates of envy and schadenfreude. Science 323, 937–939. doi: 10.1126/science.1165604

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tjeltveit, A. C. (2003). Psychology's love–hate human relationship with love: critiques and affirmations. A Paper Presented at the Works of Love: Scientific and Religious Perspectives on Altruism conference (Villanova, PA: Villanova University).

Google Scholar

Tomkins, S. (1984). "Affect theory," in Approaches to Emotion, eds K. R. Scherer and P. Ekman (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assembly).

Google Scholar

Walster, E., Berscheid, E., and Walster, Yard. W. (1973). New directions in equity research. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 25, 151–176. doi: 10.1037/h0033967

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wyschogrod, E. (2002). "Pythagorean bodies and the trunk of altruism," in Altruism and Altruistic Love: Science, Philosophy, and Religion in Dialogue, eds S. Chiliad. Mail, Fifty. Yard. Underwoood, J. P. Schloss, and W. B. Hurburt (New York, NY: Oxford University Press), 29–39.

Google Scholar

Yoshimura, Southward. K. (2004). Emotional and behavioral responses to romantic jealousy expressions. Commun. Rep. 17, 85–101. doi: 10.1080/08934210409389378

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

parkeranothetim.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01940/full

Share this post