How does love magic work? The regulation of closeness and affect by magical thinking

Abstract

Sympathetic magic and attachment theory enable the drawing of a parallel between functions of material possessions that are used in the absence of parents and a romantic partner. The ascribing of magical significance to objects may be a coping strategy facilitated by dispositional anxieties and situational threats. The aim of this research was to examine whether romantic magical thinking (MT) comforts individuals by regulating the perceived distance from a loved one. Study 1 confirmed that perceived closeness mediated the positive association between MT and safe/relaxed emotions. Study 2 revealed that induced MT about a partner’s photograph resulted in increased feelings of this person’s presence, which mediated the link between MT and safe/relaxed emotions. The coping potential of MT is discussed.

You make all things special: Developing a scale to measure sympathetic magic in romantic relationships

“…We showed that romantic SM may depend on two relatively independent factors: a cognitive vulnerability to accept magical intuitions manifested by increased experiential information processing (Study 1 and 2), and motivation to increase closeness in a romantic relationship indicated by both increased attachment anxiety and decreased attachment avoidance (Studies 1, 2, and 3). Regarding motivational factors, our results corroborate earlier findings (Niemyjska 2015;Niemyjska et al 2011) showing that romantic SM is related to the increased perception of a partner's closeness. However, this research also extends previous work by showing that romantic SM has two relatively independent sources.…”

“…Factor Structure of RSMS On the basis of observations reported in the literature (e.g., Belk and Coon 1993;Frost and Steketee 2011;Miller 2008), we have assumed that due to a similar function for adults, that is, regulation of perceived closeness to a loved one (for a discussion on this topic, see Niemyjska 2015), both laws of SM operate together. Therefore, we expected a unidimensional structure of the RSMS.…”

“…However, romantic SM and generalized attachment to inanimate objects are related constructs, even though they are functionally distinct. Romantic SM may act as a substitute for a partner's presence and thus, at least temporarily, regulates emotional distress (Niemyjska 2015). In contrast, overall object attachment facilitates a distancing of oneself from disappointing relationships (Keefer et al 2012).…”

“…Although a measure of romantic SM has already been formulated (Niemyjska 2015), it has two serious shortcomings. First, its psychometric parameters have never been formally evaluated.…”

“…It is possible, therefore, that these phenomena are related not only to increased experientiality (as romantic SM is), but also to decreased rationality. Interestingly, both romantic SM (Niemyjska 2015) and anthropomorphism (Epley et al 2007) may be elicited by loneliness. However, romantic SM maintains feelings of closeness to a specific person (a romantic partner), whereas anthropomorphism creates alternative, compensatory sources of support in non-human objects.…”