Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Archives of Sexual Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In brackets are the percentages of participants in each category.

  2. It should be noted that there was no significant sex difference in relationship status (i.e., whether a person was single or in a relationship).

  3. The model was also repeated excluding those participants that scored “1” (that is, “not applicable” on relationship length. This computation did not affect the results χ 2 = (6 df, p < .01) 62.4, GFI = .99, AGFI = .99, PGFI = .13, RMSEA = .03, AIC = 140.4.

References

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Antill, J. K. (1983). Sex role complementarity versus similarity in married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 145–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arbuckle, J. (2003). Amos 5.0 update to the Amos user’s guide. Chicago, IL: Smallwaters Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aron, A., & Westbay, L. (1996). Dimensions of the prototype of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 535–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barelds, D. P. H. (2005). Self and partner personality in intimate relationships. European Journal of Personality, 19, 501–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beall, A. E., & Sternberg, R. J. (1995). The social construction of love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 417–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Buss, D. (1994). The evolution of desire. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, B. (2004). Testing for multigroup invariance using AMOS Graphics: A road less travelled. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 272–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, B. M. (2006). Structural equation modeling with EQS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cashdan, E. (1993). Attracting mates. Ethnology and Sociobiology, 14, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2008). The Big 5-Short (B5S) Inventory. Unpublished measure, University of London.

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1949). Essentials of psychological testing. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. A. (1985). The logic of causal order. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donnellan, M. B., Conger, R. D., & Bryant, C. M. (2004). The Big Five and enduring marriages. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 481–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eysenck, H. J., & Wakefield, J. A. (1981). Psychological factors as predictors of marital satisfaction. Advances in Behavioral Research and Therapy, 3, 151–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, B. (1988). Prototype analysis of the concepts of love and commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 557–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 429–456.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Feng, D., & Baker, L. (1994). Spouse similarity in attitudes, personality, and psychological well-being. Behavior Genetics, 24, 357–364.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, L. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Gordon, R. M. (2006). What is love? Toward a unified model of love relations. Issues in Psychoanalytic Psychology, 28, 25–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, M. (2007). The psychology of love. Psychology Review, 12, 5–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Graziano, W. G. (2001). Agreeableness as a moderator of interpersonal conflict. Journal of Personality, 69, 323–362.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modelling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, D. A. (1979). Correlation and causality. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. A. (1973). The colors of love: An exploration of the ways of loving. Toronto: New Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. A. (1977). A topology of styles of loving. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 173–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Loehlin, J. C. (1992). Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and structural analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marston, P. J., Hecht, M. L., Manke, M. L., McDaniel, S., & Reeder, H. (1998). The subjective experience of intimacy. Personal Relationships, 5, 15–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pramanick, M. (1996). Socio-economic status and personality. Psychological Studies, 41, 77–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 119–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Sternberg, R. J. (1995). Love as a story. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 541–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Cupid’s arrow: The course of love through time. London: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2005). The subjective experience of partnership love: AQ methodological study. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 85–107.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidner, M., & Kaluda, I. (2008). Romantic love: What’s emotional intelligence (EI) got to do with it? Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1684–1695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London, New Cross, London, SE14 6NW, UK

    Gorkan Ahmetoglu & Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Westminster, London, UK

    Viren Swami

Authors
  1. Gorkan Ahmetoglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Viren Swami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic.

Appendix

Appendix

(1) The Big 5-Short Inventory: Please give your response to every one of these statements to indicate your choice of agreement:

 

YOU ARE:

     

1

Outgoing, talkative, and enjoy meeting people

0

1

2

3

4

2

Considerate, polite and politically correct

0

1

2

3

4

3

Organized, efficient, and try to do things properly

0

1

2

3

4

4

Anxious, worry easily, and have frequent mood swings

0

1

2

3

4

5

Intellectual, creative, and curious about exploring new things

0

1

2

3

4

6*

Shy, quiet, and prefer to avoid crowded parties

0

1

2

3

4

7*

Straight-talking, cold, and rarely feel sorry for others

0

1

2

3

4

8*

Spontaneous, disorganized, and do things last minute

0

1

2

3

4

9*

Relaxed and calm and rarely worry about problems

0

1

2

3

4

10*

Down-to-earth, traditional, and rarely waste time daydreaming

0

1

2

3

4

  1. * Means scale needs to be reversed (0 = 4, 1 = 3, 3 = 1, 4 = 0) before scoring; to calculate scores, one should not use “0” but move the scale one point to right, so that 0 = 1, 1 = 2, 2 = 3, 3 = 4, 4 = 5 (this is for all items and also for the romantic scale below)
  2. 1 + 6 = Extraversion (sociability or how sociable you are)
  3. 2 + 7 = Agreeableness (friendliness or how friendly you are)
  4. 3 + 8 = Conscientiousness (responsibility or how responsible you are)
  5. 4 + 9 = Neuroticism (anxiety or how anxious you are)
  6. 5 + 10 = Openness (creativity or how creative you are)

(2) The triangular love scale: if you are not currently in a relationship, base your answer on your previous relationship.

1

My partner and I share personal information with each other

0

1

2

3

4

2

I am strongly attracted to my partner

0

1

2

3

4

3

I think my relationship with my partner will last forever

0

1

2

3

4

4

I can tell everything to my partner

0

1

2

3

4

5

I find my partner sexually attractive

0

1

2

3

4

6*

I will probably have another love relationship later in my life

0

1

2

3

4

7*

My partner rarely understands how I feel

0

1

2

3

4

8

I tend to feel sexually aroused when my partner is with me

0

1

2

3

4

9*

I often think of being with other men/women

0

1

2

3

4

  1. Note: Same notes as previous table apply
  2. 1 + 4 + 7 = Intimacy (how close you are to your partner)
  3. 2 + 5 + 8 = Passion (how passionate you are about your partner)
  4. 3 + 6 + 9 = Commitment (how committed you are to the relationship)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ahmetoglu, G., Swami, V. & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. The Relationship Between Dimensions of Love, Personality, and Relationship Length. Arch Sex Behav 39, 1181–1190 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-009-9515-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-009-9515-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation