Measuring Positive Emotionality: A Review of Instruments Assessing Love

Abstract

Love is a multidimensional construct that has proven difficult to define and, consequently, challenging to measure. A variety of available instruments purport to measure aspects of love, 9 of which are reviewed and discussed in this article. Researchers and practitioners are advised to study definitions of the love construct as well as psychometric properties of instruments in selecting measures of love appropriate to their purposes. Article: The importance of love has been acknowledged for centuries in the writings of philosophers (e.g., Plato), theologians e.g., St. Paul, 1 Corinthians), and scholars (e.g., Maslow) (O'Sullivan & O'Leary, 1992). Yet love consistently has been defined as somewhat of-a mystery‖ (Jung, 1961, p. 353) "with which we are psychologically preoccupied" (Powell, 1978, p. 14). Early researchers in the last century explained love as a unidimensional construct reflecting interpersonal attraction and viewed liking and loving as the anchors of a linear continuum (Huston, 1974): others considered movement on the continuum to be the result of interpersonal attraction, the latter consisting of cognitive, affective, and behavioral components (Berscheid & Walster, 1978). Lee's (1977) typology of six love styles has dominated much of the theory and research in the past 20 years; Sternberg's (1986) triangular theory of love and eight kinds of love also serve as the basis for research and clinical practice. Multiple definitions have resulted in multiple measures of lore, leaving researchers and practitioners with the dilemma of selecting the most appropriate measures for their purposes. There was a noticeable lack of research involving love during the 1950s and 1960s (Curtin, 1973; Elkins & Smith, 1979). Wrightsman and Deaux (1981) noted that during that period, researchers "believed love [was] too mysterious and too intangible for scientific study" (p. 170). However, during the mid-1970s and early 1980s, love became "respectable as an area for study by psychologists" (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986, p. 392). This professional acceptance resulted in a renewed focus during the 1990s on defining, measuring, and examining love's components, variables, and overall importance as part of holistic well-being (see, e.g., Beall & Sternberg, 1995; Thompson & Borrello, 1992b). Holistic approaches included love as a key life task that is necessary to achieve optimum individual wellness (see. e.g., Myers, Sweeney, & Witmer, 2000: Sweeney & Witmer, 1991). As we entered the new millennium, individuals promoting the "positive psychology" movement began encouraging psychologists to use similar strength-based practices in their work. Lead theorists and practitioners called for a new locus on the-actions [that] lead to well-being, to positive individuals, and to thriving communities" (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000, p. 5) rather than on pathology and negativism. Finding ways to both assess and encourage love and loving relationships certainly falls within the framework of this overall trend in the field. The current view ...

Love and Personal Relationships: Navigating on the Border Between the Ideal and the Real

“…Unlike the set of definitions of personal relating about which there is broad agreement, definitions of love differ widely as was found in a review of instruments assessing love (Myers & Shurts, 2002). Myers and Shurts demonstrate that while some researchers fail to provide operational definitions for the construct of love their scales claim to measure (e.g.…”

What’s love got to do with it? Employee engagement amongst higher education workers

“…Similar to engagement, love is a colloquial term that is difficult to define as it represents many intangible feelings and experiences (Berscheid, 2010;Myers and Shurts, 2002). The term love is traditionally used to describe feelings of affection towards another human being (Berscheid.…”

Review of the relationship between the college students attitudes towards love and depression levels

“…Love related topics were not considered scientific to be analyzed in 1950's and it caused this topic to be ignored. However, psychologists started to reanalyze the topic in last thirty years (Büyükşahin, 2004;Myers and Shurts, 2002;Neto, 2005).…”