Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 39, Issue 5, pp 1181–1190 | Cite as

The Relationship Between Dimensions of Love, Personality, and Relationship Length

  • Gorkan Ahmetoglu
  • Viren Swami
  • Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic
Original Paper

Abstract

The present study examined the associations among participant demographics, personality factors, love dimensions, and relationship length. In total, 16,030 participants completed an internet survey assessing Big Five personality factors, Sternberg’s three love dimensions (intimacy, passion, and commitment), and the length of time that they had been involved in a relationship. Results of structural equation modeling (SEM) showed that participant age was negatively associated with passion and positively associated with intimacy and commitment. In addition, the Big Five factor of Agreeableness was positively associated with all three love dimensions, whereas Conscientiousness was positively associated with intimacy and commitment. Finally, passion was negatively associated with relationship length, whereas commitment was positively correlated with relationship length. SEM results further showed that there were minor differences in these associations for women and men. Given the large sample size, our results reflect stable associations between personality factors and love dimensions. The present results may have important implications for relationship and marital counseling. Limitations of this study and further implications are discussed.

Keywords

Love Personality Big Five Relationship length Interpersonal relationships Internet survey 

References

  1. Abele, A. E. (2003). The dynamics of masculine-agentic and feminine-communal traits: Findings from a prospective study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 768–776.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Akaike, H. (1973). Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In B. N. Petrov & F. Csaki (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd international symposium on information theory (pp. 267–281). Budapest: Akademiai Kiado.Google Scholar
  3. Antill, J. K. (1983). Sex role complementarity versus similarity in married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 145–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arbuckle, J. (2003). Amos 5.0 update to the Amos user’s guide. Chicago, IL: Smallwaters Corporation.Google Scholar
  5. Aron, A., & Westbay, L. (1996). Dimensions of the prototype of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 535–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barelds, D. P. H. (2005). Self and partner personality in intimate relationships. European Journal of Personality, 19, 501–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beall, A. E., & Sternberg, R. J. (1995). The social construction of love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 417–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berscheid, E. (1988). Some comments on love’s anatomy: Or, whatever happened to old-fashioned lust? In R. Sternberg & M. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love (pp. 359–374). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. Botwin, M. D., Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Personality and mate preferences: Five factors in mate selection and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 107–136.Google Scholar
  11. Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1988). Individual difference variables in close relationships: A contextual model of marriage as an integrative framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 713–721.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Buck, R. (2007). The evolutionary based of social and moral emotions: Dominance, submission, and true love. Sydney Symposium of Social Psychology Series, 9, 89–106.Google Scholar
  14. Buss, D. (1994). The evolution of desire. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  15. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Byrne, B. (2004). Testing for multigroup invariance using AMOS Graphics: A road less travelled. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 272–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Byrne, B. M. (2006). Structural equation modeling with EQS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  18. Cashdan, E. (1993). Attracting mates. Ethnology and Sociobiology, 14, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2008). The Big 5-Short (B5S) Inventory. Unpublished measure, University of London.Google Scholar
  20. Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Reimers, S., Hsu, A., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2008). Who art thou? Individual difference determinants of artistic preferences. British Journal of Psychology, 100, 501–516.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  22. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  23. Costa, P. T., Jr., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 322–331.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Cronbach, L. J. (1949). Essentials of psychological testing. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  25. Davila, J., Karney, B. R., Hall, T. W., & Bradbury, T. N. (2003). Depressive symptoms and marital satisfaction: Within-subject associations and the moderating effects of gender and neuroticism. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 557–570.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Davis, J. A. (1985). The logic of causal order. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Donnellan, M. B., Conger, R. D., & Bryant, C. M. (2004). The Big Five and enduring marriages. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 481–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Emanuele, E., Politi, P., Bianchi, M., Minoretti, P., Bertona, M., & Geroldi, D. (2006). Raised plasma nerve growth factor levels associated with early-stage romantic love. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 31, 288–294.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Engel, G., Olson, K. R., & Patrick, C. (2002). The personality of love: Fundamental motives and traits related to components of love. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 839–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Eysenck, H. J., & Wakefield, J. A. (1981). Psychological factors as predictors of marital satisfaction. Advances in Behavioral Research and Therapy, 3, 151–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fehr, B. (1988). Prototype analysis of the concepts of love and commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 557–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 429–456.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Feng, D., & Baker, L. (1994). Spouse similarity in attitudes, personality, and psychological well-being. Behavior Genetics, 24, 357–364.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Goldberg, L. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. J. Deary, F. de Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7–28). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Gordon, R. M. (2006). What is love? Toward a unified model of love relations. Issues in Psychoanalytic Psychology, 28, 25–34.Google Scholar
  37. Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004). Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59, 93–104.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Hair, E. C. (1996). Perceiving interpersonal conflict and reacting to it: The case for agreeableness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 820–835.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Griffiths, M. (2007). The psychology of love. Psychology Review, 12, 5–6.Google Scholar
  41. Heaven, P. C. L., Smith, L., Prabhakar, S. M., Abraham, J., & Mete, M. E. (2006). Personality and conflict communication patterns in cohabiting couples. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 829–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Graziano, W. G. (2001). Agreeableness as a moderator of interpersonal conflict. Journal of Personality, 69, 323–362.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modelling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
  44. Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1997). Neuroticism, marital interaction, and the trajectory of marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1075–1092.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Kelly, E. L., & Conley, J. J. (1987). Personality and compatibility: A prospective analysis of marital stability and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 27–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Kenny, D. A. (1979). Correlation and causality. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  47. Kurdek, L. A., & Schmitt, J. P. (1986). Interaction of sex role self-concept with relationship quality and relationship beliefs in married, heterosexual cohabiting, gay, and lesbian couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 365–370.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Lee, J. A. (1973). The colors of love: An exploration of the ways of loving. Toronto: New Press.Google Scholar
  49. Lee, J. A. (1977). A topology of styles of loving. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 173–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lemieux, R., & Hale, J. L. (1999). Intimacy, passion, and commitment in young romantic relationships: Successfully measuring the triangular theory of love. Psychological Reports, 85, 497–503.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Loehlin, J. C. (1992). Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and structural analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  52. Marston, P. J., Hecht, M. L., Manke, M. L., McDaniel, S., & Reeder, H. (1998). The subjective experience of intimacy. Personal Relationships, 5, 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C. D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 430–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Beyond global sociosexual orientations: A more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1113–1135.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Pramanick, M. (1996). Socio-economic status and personality. Psychological Studies, 41, 77–79.Google Scholar
  57. Schmitt, D. P., Allik, J. R., McCrae, R. R., & Benet-Martínez, V. N. (2007). The geographic distribution of Big Five personality traits: Patterns and profiles of human self-description across 56 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 173–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 119–138.Google Scholar
  59. Sternberg, R. J. (1988). Triangulating love. In R. J. Sternberg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love (pp. 119–138). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Sternberg, R. J. (1995). Love as a story. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 541–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Cupid’s arrow: The course of love through time. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Swami, V., Stieger, S., Haubner, T., Voracek, M., & Furnham, A. (2009). Evaluating the physical attractiveness of oneself and one's romantic partner: Individual and relationship correlates of the love-is-blind bias. Journal of Individual Differences, 30, 35–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Tanaka, J. S., & Huba, G. J. (1985). A fit index for covariance structure models under arbitrary GLS estimation. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38, 197–201.Google Scholar
  65. Taraban, C. B., Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1998). Loving and liking. In P. A. Andersen & L. K. Guerrero (Eds.), Handbook of communication and emotion (pp. 331–351). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  66. Tjeltveit, A. C. (2006). Psychology’s love-hate relationship with love: Critiques, affirmations, and Christian responses. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 34, 8–22.Google Scholar
  67. Tobin, R. M., Graziano, W. G., Vanman, E., & Tassinary, L. (2000). Personality, emotional experience, and efforts to control emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 130–132.Google Scholar
  68. Watson, D., Hubbard, B., & Wiese, D. (2000). General traits of personality and affectivity as predictors of satisfaction in intimate relationships: Evidence from self- and partner-ratings. Journal of Personality, 68, 413–449.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2005). The subjective experience of partnership love: AQ methodological study. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 85–107.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Zeidner, M., & Kaluda, I. (2008). Romantic love: What’s emotional intelligence (EI) got to do with it? Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1684–1695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gorkan Ahmetoglu
    • 1
  • Viren Swami
    • 2
  • Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychology, GoldsmithsUniversity of LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of WestminsterLondonUK

Personalised recommendations