Edge Rewrite
everything Source code View original
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a25f93c7caf090c0

Jump to content

// Workers AI · dad joke modeWhy Colour wheel theory of love go bad? It spun out of control.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Love styles)

The colour wheel of love by John Alan Lee[1][2]

The colour wheel theory of love was developed by the sociologist John Alan Lee to distinguish the different ways to love another person.[3][4][5] Lee's types, termed love styles,[note 1] comprise the basic patterns or similarities which emerged in an analysis of individual love stories.[4][7]

The six most common love styles are summarised briefly by the researcher Elaine Hatfield as follows:[8]

  • Eros: love of beauty.
  • Ludus: playful love.
  • Storge: companionate love.
  • Mania: obsessive love.
  • Agape: altruistic love.
  • Pragma: realistic love.

Lee's types were developed with modern scientific methods; the Greek and Latin words were borrowed as labels.[3][5][7] Lee's original theory proposed twelve types (with even more being possible),[4][9][note 2] although usually only the six most common are listed.[3][5][11]

Scientific measures

[edit]

Love Story Card Sort

[edit]

The Love Story Card Sort was a method for measuring love styles, developed by Lee himself for his initial research published in 1973.[7][3][12]

The card sort consists of about 1500 cards, each of which describes some event, idea or emotion possible in a love relationship.[7][12] The cards are then organized in sets, each with a question card and a list of possible answer cards, including a blank write-in.[12] Thus, using some features of both interview and questionnaire, a respondent is able to tell their own personal love story—happy or unhappy—with a very large total number of possible combinations.[12][3]

McBee cards were used by Lee in Love Story Card Sort.[13] The card pictured has an instructional diagram.

Lee used McBee card sorting techniques to reduce the card sort items to just 206 cards which seemed to be the most important factors for distinguishing the types of love in his sample, 32 of which seemed to be particularly significant.[13][3] The following examples are mentioned by Lee as being among the most predictive:[14][note 3]

  1. Respondent believed his childhood was happy compared to that of his peers.
  2. He found his thoughts obsessively preoccupied with the beloved.
  3. He felt strong approval of beloved's looks at first sight.
  4. Sexual intercourse occurred very early in the relationship.
  5. Respondent accepted partner's lack of intensity or holding back.
— John Alan Lee, Colours of Love: An Exploration of the Ways of Loving

Lee then used a Guttman scaling technique to arrange the 112 pilot study respondents into clusters, which seemed to correspond to various love styles according to theoretical concerns. Some of these groups seemed to correspond to the love styles eros, ludus, storge and mania, as they were described in literature, while others seemed to be more transitional.[15] However, these transitional groups (e.g. manic eros, manic ludus, storgic eros, and so on) could not be arranged along a single continuum, leading Lee to develop his triangular model of three primaries.[16]

The factor analysis and Guttman scaling techniques used by Lee allowed him to draw up a profile of each love story as a type, along with its associated characteristics.[14][3]

Love Attitudes Scale

[edit]

The Love Attitudes Scale (LAS) was created in the 1980s by Clyde Hendrick and Susan Hendrick, as an extension of Lee's research; however, the LAS uses rating scales in lieu of the more complicated design of the Love Story Card Sort.[17][7][18][19] Answers on the LAS are given with Likert-type scales, ranging from 1 for "strongly agree" to 5 for "strongly disagree".[20] The items on the LAS are divided into six subscales, which correspond to the six most common love styles.[18][19]

Lee initially complained about the use of rating scales, which he believed were insufficient to measure love styles, although he eventually conceded this argument to the Hendricks and accepted the ubiquity of rating scales.[21]

Properly speaking, rather than measuring love styles, the LAS measures love attitudes. A love style is a type, while a love attitude is a variable.[17] The goal of the Hendricks was to transform Lee's types into six dimensions, measuring the "amount" of each love style for an individual, and forming the individual's profile when taken together. Love attitude measures can then be used for hypothesis testing with other variables such as attachment styles and personality traits.[17][22][18][23]

The Hendricks originally considered it an open question of what kinds of things the love styles themselves actually are—for example, enduring personality traits, or only more transient attitudes. Lee believed one could carry out different love styles with different people, simultaneously even. The Hendricks speculated that love styles have both trait and state characteristics.[18] In 2006, the Hendricks construed love styles as "attitude/belief systems that include a variable emotional core, and possibly some linkage to personality traits".[24]

Primary love styles

[edit]

Eros

[edit]

In Greek mythology, Eros was a god of love, directed towards male and female beauty, and the personification of sexual desire.[25][26] His arrows are shot through the eyes of the lover.[27] For this love style, "love is blind" may not apply.[27] Lee describes the lover with an eros style as searching for a partner based on how closely their physical appearance matches a personal ideal.[28][27] As such, eros begins with a powerful initial attraction, referred to by Stendhal as "a sudden sensation of recognition and hope".[29] Through interviews, Lee found stories of love at first sight that survived for years of life together, therefore not just being a fiction of poets and novelists.[30][27]

Typically, an erotic lover recalls a happy childhood, and is ready for love and its risks.[27] All of Lee's respondents who were successful in their experience of eros had a solid foundation in life. They also did not become lovesick with obsessive desire or become forceful, when having to wait during the period between seeing their beloved for the first time and finding the opportunity for a relationship. Lee comments that "You cannot launch a space rocket from a swamp, nor eros from a naive, self-doubting and overly dependent personality."[31] A successful erotic relationship is also more likely when eros is closer to being the primary conception of love for both lovers.[32]

In contrast to modern usage which tends to equate erotic with sexual, Lee intended to strengthen the original Greek meaning of eros—involving mental or ideal properties, as in Plato's original conception of platonic love.[33] An erotic lover seeks their specific ideal of "the beautiful", but is not only interested in sex. As one of Lee's respondents puts it, "Our sex [...] was never the most important thing and it's certainly not the thing that holds us together. We make love; sex doesn't make us love."[34]

Eros, as well as mania, corresponds to concepts like falling in love,[35] passionate love,[36] and romantic love.[37]

The LAS eros subscale has items such as:[18]

  • "My lover and I have the right physical 'chemistry' between us."
  • "My lover fits my ideal standards of physical beauty/handsomeness."

The eros love attitude has been positively associated with secure attachment[23] and the personality traits agreeableness, conscientiousness, and extraversion, but negatively associated with neuroticism.[38][39] In modern research, the LAS eros subscale has also been sometimes used to measure the intensity of romantic love, although it was not intended for this.[20][40][41]

Ludus

[edit]

"Ludus" is the Latin word for "play" or "game".[42][43] It was adapted by Lee from amor ludens, a term for playful love used by the poet Ovid, who advised lovers to enjoy love as a pleasant and unserious pastime.[44][42] A ludic lover does not fall in love[42] or become dependent, and refuses to allow their lover to become overly attached.[44] A ludic lover has no ideal type of beloved in mind. They are pluralistic, and may play with several partners simultaneously; the "game" might be played openly by warning a lover they have alternatives, or with the deception of promising a false commitment.[42][43] Other types of lovers may dismiss ludus as not even love at all, or a subtle form of seduction.[44]

A typical ludic lover recalls an average childhood, but is often frustrated with adult life, and unwilling to "settle down" and commit.[42] Like eros, ludus also requires self-assurance to be successful; unlike eros, however, the ludic lover prefers to swim in "shallower water", convincing himself or herself they do not "need" other people.[45] A ludic lover who is unable to stay detached runs the risk of becoming lovesick with the tertiary love style manic ludus.[46]

Don Juan is a famous literary example of the ludus love style, with James Bond also being similar.[42][47]

The LAS ludus subscale has items such as:[18]

  • "I try to keep my lover a little uncertain about my commitment to him/her."
  • "I have sometimes had to keep two of my lovers from finding out about each other."

The ludus love attitude has been positively associated with avoidant attachment, maladaptive psychological defence mechanisms,[23] and the personality trait neuroticism, but negatively associated with agreeableness and conscientiousness.[38][39]

Storge

[edit]

"Storge" is the Ancient Greek word for that loving affection which develops between family members or friends.[48] The storge love style is a form of companionate love,[49][8] beginning as friendship and growing only more gradually into a committed relationship.[49][48] Such love might occur between childhood neighbors, or longtime school friends.[43] It is possible, however, for a storgic relationship to occur between strangers if they share a similar background, and the quality of experience is right as the relationship develops.[49] Storgic love comes naturally with time and the mutual enjoyment of shared activities, as one grows accustomed to another.[49]

Typical storgic lovers grew up with supportive families or communities, are satisfied with life, and expect love to be a kind of special friendship with more than the usual time spent together.[48] They have no ideal beloved in mind, and instead happen to meet others through mutual activities.[49][48] Self-disclosure comes slowly in a storgic relationship, but there is an expectation of commitment.[43] The goals of the storge love style are marriage, home and children. However, the shared activities (e.g. at church or a club) are likely to continue in a storgic relationship—unlike in pragma, where the shared activities are more of a means to an end, and dropped after meeting the partner.[49]

Storge has a "lower profile" than eros, ludus or mania, being more dispassionate, and is sometimes hard to distinguish from ordinary friendship.[50][43] According to Lee, storge is "without fever or folly" and "rarely the stuff of dramatic works or romantic novels".[49] Those who prefer a more passionate form of love, such as eros or mania, may find storge to be on the dull side.[48] The storgic lover may also be puzzled by those partners who expect love to be more dramatic.[50] Mutually storgic lovers do not spend time gazing into each other's eyes, or saying "I love you";[49] such thoughts and expressions are usually avoided.[43]

The LAS storge subscale has items such as:[18]

  • "I did not realize that I was in love until I actually had been for some time. (It is hard to say exactly where friendship ends and love begins.)"
  • "Love is really a deep friendship, not a mysterious, mystical emotion."

The storge love attitude has been positively associated with the personality traits conscientiousness and extraversion, but negatively associated with neuroticism.[38][39] The Hendricks had predicted a relationship between storge and agreeableness, but it failed to reach statistical significance.[39] The storge love attitude has also been negatively associated with secure attachment (meaning insecure), although it is regarded as an otherwise positive love attitude.[23]

Secondary love styles

[edit]

Mania

[edit]

"Mania" is taken by Lee from the Ancient Greek phrase theia mania: the madness from the gods.[51][52] A manic lover is obsessively preoccupied, jealous, and needs reassurance of being loved in return.[52] According to Lee, "Mania can become almost an addiction nearly impossible for the addict to end on his own initiative."[53]

A typical manic lover recalls their childhood as unhappy, and they're usually lonely, dissatisfied adults.[52] They're anxious to fall in love; however, they're unsure of which physical type they prefer.[3] Because they're unsure of who to fall in love with, they often fall in love with somebody quite inappropriate (a stranger, or even somebody they initially dislike) and project onto them the qualities they want but don't actually have.[54][52] According to Lee, only manic lovers typically "crystallize" (as Stendhal described it) and ignore shortcomings and flaws in their beloved.[55]

Mania is often the first love style of a young person, but others may not experience it until middle age—for example, after a marriage has lost interest.[52][56] A cycle of manic loves is often caused by a desperate need to be in love, the cause of which the manic lover must locate and remedy to break free.[52]

In the colour wheel analogy, mania is a secondary compound love style, made by combining the primaries eros and ludus.[57][58][52] According to Lee's research data, manic lovers showed an intensity comparable to eros, yet in many ways they did not even really "like" their beloved at all. Additionally, they exhibited self-control of emotional expression and attempts to elicit a response from their partner similar to ludus. However, mania also contained qualities not contained in either primary type: emotions extreme enough to be self-defeating, an inability to enjoy mutuality, and almost always an unhappy ending with a bitter recovery.[57][58]

Ludus and mania have a "fatal attraction" for one another; it's surprisingly common, but not a good match for happy, mutual love.[59] Lee recommends that only a beloved who is typical of eros would be a suitable match for a manic lover, being more likely to tolerate them until their mania turns into a more stable love.[60]

Mania has been compared to obsessive love,[8] love addiction,[52] and limerence.[61]

Manic love is the tragic theme of popular romance stories such as Tristan and Iseult, Romeo and Juliet, and The Sorrows of Young Werther.[62] Lee associates the ideology of courtly love with the mania love style in particular. According to Lee, Western culture came to view mania as a legitimate basis for mate selection through the courtly and romantic traditions. This replaced the medieval Christian doctrine that marriage should focus on family values and child care.[63][64]

The LAS mania subscale has items such as:[18]

  • "When my lover doesn't pay attention to me, I feel sick all over."
  • "When I am in love, I have trouble concentrating on anything else."

The mania love attitude has been positively associated with attachment anxiety, maladaptive psychological defence mechanisms,[23] and the personality trait neuroticism.[38][39]

Agape

[edit]

"Agape" is the Ancient Greek term used by Paul the Apostle when writing to the early Christians in the First Epistle,[43][3][65] saying "Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude."[66][note 4] The term has also been considered an alias for the concept of compassionate love.[68] The agape love style is selfless and altruistic; an agapic lover considers it their duty to love, without any expectation of reciprocity in return.[69][70]

An agapic lover may be content with only very little of their partner's time, or even willing to let the partner go if they would be happier with somebody else.[70] Consequently, agape is the least common love style practiced in actual relationships, existing more as an ideal most likely to be attained in celibacy.[70][3] Lee admits he found no unqualified examples of the agape love style in his sample, only brief episodes in relationships that were otherwise selfish. One man, for example, bowed out gracefully to a rival to save his beloved the pain of deciding between them, but was later delighted when she returned to him.[65][69] Agapic lovers are generally older and more mature—a love governed by reason or will, rather than attraction.[3]

In the colour wheel analogy, agape is a secondary compound love style, made by combining the primaries eros and storge.[69][70] Saint Augustine was the first to recognize this when he wrote of a need to restrain eros, because of a belief that only God was deserving of such a union.[70][63] Therefore, erotic love is redirected by agape through submission to God (caritas),[63] and a kind of generalized invocation of storge in being a good neighbor, servant, and friend.[70] Lee, however, states that the compound nature of the agape love style must remain only a theory, due to the lack of real life examples to demonstrate it.[69]

The LAS agape subscale has items such as:[18]

  • "I cannot be happy unless I place my lover's happiness before my own."
  • "I am usually willing to sacrifice my own wishes to let my lover achieve his/hers."

The agape love attitude has been positively associated with secure attachment.[23]

Pragma

[edit]

"Pragma" is the Ancient Greek root of the word "pragmatic".[71][72][43] A pragmatic lover has a mental "shopping list" of the traits they desire in a partner. The list may include physical traits; however, unlike eros, there is no special emphasis on this.[72][43] Rather, a pragmatic lover emphasises compatibility, searching for qualities which tend to be demographic or personality traits—religious, political, or social class background, age, education, income, hobbies, favourite sports, and so on.[71][72][43] The pragma love style only requires this kind of compatibility, and that the relationship works well, satisfying the needs of both partners.[71]

A pragmatic lover is often an adult who feels their personal goals can be attained through effort. Finding a compatible partner is only a practical problem to be solved by getting to know a potential partner, and avoiding warning signs or a hasty commitment.[72] They are aware of their own "market value" as a mate and know who is "out of their league".[43] The pragmatic search for a partner is a conscious activity, first of determining the characteristics one finds desirable, and then determining which potential partners appear to have them.[72] A pragmatic lover can produce a list of these characteristics, and rate their importance from high to low.[71]

In the colour wheel analogy, pragma is a secondary compound love style, made by combining the primaries ludus and storge.[71][72] Like ludus, the pragmatic search is a conscious and deliberate effort, and the pragmatic lover tends to control and manipulate the process as a relationship develops. However, unlike ludus, the pragmatic lover wants to settle down in a satisfying long-term relationship, like storge.[71]

Pragma is the love style of arranged marriage.[71][72]

The LAS pragma subscale has items such as:[18]

  • "A main consideration in choosing a lover is how he/she reflects on my family."
  • "One consideration in choosing a partner is how he/she will reflect on my career."

The pragma love attitude has been positively associated with avoidant attachment.[23]

Biology

[edit]
These paragraphs are an excerpt from Biology of romantic love § Love attitudes.[edit]

In 2007, researchers from the University of Pavia led by Enzo Emanuele investigated the relation between love attitudes and the dopamine and serotonin pathways, by examining the association with polymorphisms in several neurotransmitter genes.[73] This study found that the eros love attitude was associated with the DRD2 (dopamine receptor) TaqI A genotypes. A trend was observed in the study for higher scores on eros according to the number of A1 alleles, which has previously been associated with lower DRD2 density.[73] (D2 receptors are inhibitory.)[74] Such a difference is hypothesized to result in a deficiency such that the reward is enhanced from pleasant experiences, consistent with some of the "addictive" features of eros, such as a need for daily contact and a desire for exclusivity. Additionally, the mania love attitude was associated with the 5HT2A (serotonin receptor) C516T genotype, which has also been associated with obsessive–compulsive disorder.[73]

In behavioral genetics, one tool which is valuable for determining genetic influence is the twin study,[75] which compares identical twins (monozygotic, who are genetically identical) and fraternal twins (dizygotic, who are only 50% genetically related, like other siblings). The differences between the two types of twins are used to estimate how much of a given trait is heritable (how much the individual differences in a group, i.e. variance, can be accounted for by genetic differences between individuals), and how much is environmental. Environmental contribution is further split between shared environment (which makes family members more similar) and nonshared environment (which makes them different, but for mathematical reasons also includes measurement error).[75]

In 1994, a twin study co-authored by Phillip Shaver investigated the genetic and environmental influence on love attitudes.[76] This study found that individual differences in love attitudes are almost exclusively due to environmental influence, with genetic factors having very little influence for most love attitudes (from most-to-least heritable: mania, storge, pragma & eros), and even no influence at all for others (ludus & agape). The authors interpret the result as meaning that love styles may be influenced by one's childhood familial environment (for shared environment) and unique experiences with parents, peers, adolescent and adult lovers, and so on (for nonshared environment). Of these, the influence from the nonshared environment was larger than the shared environment.[76]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ↑ "Love style" was also stylized by Lee as "lovestyle"[3] and "love-style".[6]
  2. ↑ All of the types identified by Lee (eighteen in total) are as follows.[10]
    The twelve types originally proposed by Lee (and expanded on by him with profiles) are listed first.
    According to Lee, the six tertiary types listed underneath (and italicized) are theoretically possible, but might not actually exist. Only the three tertiary types of mania could be identified with certainty.
    1. Primary
      • Eros
      • Ludus
      • Storge
    2. Secondary (compound)
      • Mania (ludus–eros)
      • Agape (eros–storge)
      • Pragma (ludus–storge)
    3. Secondary (mixture)
      • Ludic eros
      • Storgic eros
      • Storgic ludus
    4. Tertiary (certain)
      • Manic eros
      • Manic ludus
      • Manic storge
    5. Tertiary (only theoretical)
      • Agapic eros
      • Agapic ludus
      • Agapic storge
      • Pragmatic eros
      • Pragmatic ludus
      • Pragmatic storge
  3. ↑ All 32 of the most significant factors are listed in the full table in Colours of Love, but some specific items are mentioned in prose.[14]
  4. ↑ Christianity came to use the word "agape" in a different sense, however, than the ancient Greeks, who actually used it to mean loving in a more general sense; in modern Greece the word is also used to say "I love you".[67]

References

[edit]
  1. ↑ Colours in Lee 1973, p. 23
  2. ↑ Diagram in Lee 1988, p. 54
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lee, John Alan (1977). "A Typology of Styles of Loving". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 3 (2): 173–182. doi:10.1177/014616727700300204. ISSN 0146-1672. My concern has been, not to define love, but to distinguish clearly the personal and social expression of the various conceptions of love, the various 'styles of loving' or more conveniently, lovestyles. However, I am interested in only those forms of love involved in intimate adult affiliation (sometimes called mating love, marrying love, or 'heterosexual love'). I am not concerned with love of God, love of children, or love of country, though these ideas of love are by no means unrelated to conceptualizations of intimate adult affiliation.
  4. 1 2 3 Lee 1977, pp. 4–8, 80–81, 167–170: 'How many kinds of love are there? As with color, this is entirely a matter of useful distinction. For most of us, it is sufficient to distinguish brown from green and yellow, without getting into the many shades of brown. My research disclosed twelve "colors of love" sufficient to describe the experience of most lovers.
    The lovestyles described in this book are the result of systematic analysis of the love experiences of more than two hundred men and women from the ages of sixteen to seventy. Each respondent completed a detailed record of his or her experience, beginning with recollections of childhood and the love relationships between the respondent's parents. Although each respondent's "love story" was unique in its details, when the many thousands of items of data from all the stories were coded and analyzed, certain similarities emerged. The basic "patterns" of love, which I have named lovestyles, have been independently confirmed by another sociologist, using different samples.'
  5. 1 2 3 Karandashev, Victor (9 October 2022). "The Typology of Love Styles Developed by John Alan Lee". The Diversity of Love Journal. Archived from the original on 12 November 2025. Retrieved 3 June 2026. The six love styles in the typology represent the distinctive clusters of personal beliefs, attitudes, behaviors, and individual identity that men and women exhibit in love. [...] Lee denoted these love styles with conventional labels borrowed from the Greek and Latin lexicon of love. [...] The author proposed the hierarchical taxonomic structure of these love styles. So, he illustrated this love typology with a circle of love. A color system provided an illustrative analogy that would be meaningful to represent love styles as a vivid taxonomical system.
  6. ↑ Lee 1988
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 Karandashev, Victor (10 October 2022). "How John Lee Originally Assessed Love Styles". The Diversity of Love Journal. Archived from the original on 10 October 2025. Retrieved 3 June 2026.
  8. 1 2 3 Hatfield & Walster 1985, p. 38
  9. ↑ Lee 1973, pp. 10, 12–13, 156–159: "The number of kinds of love you are prepared to distinguish depends on how particular you are. I propose to stop at twelve kinds, though I indicate six more for further exploration. [...] One of my tasks in this research has been to reduce the possible types of love to a manageable number without generalizing too much. As indicated, my theory at present proposes twelve types, but this is not necessarily final."
  10. ↑ Lee 1973, pp. 10–13, 23–29, 156–169
  11. ↑ Lee 1988, pp. 42–53
  12. 1 2 3 4 Lee 1973, pp. 240–241, 243
  13. 1 2 Lee 1973, pp. 259–260
  14. 1 2 3 Lee 1973, pp. 260–261: "Among the most predictive factors (those which predicted that certain other experiences would occur) were an unhappy childhood, early sexual intercourse with the beloved, immediate physical attraction to the beloved, a clearly defined ideal image of the desired partner, an intense mental preoccupation with the partner, and attempts to force the partner to show more feeling."
  15. ↑ Lee 1973, pp. 262–267
  16. ↑ Lee 1973, pp. 266–267
  17. 1 2 3 Karandashev, Victor (18 October 2022). "What Does the Love Attitude Scale Evaluate?". The Diversity of Love Journal. Archived from the original on 17 January 2025. Retrieved 23 August 2025.
  18. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Hendrick, Clyde; Hendrick, Susan (1986). "A theory and method of love". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 50 (2): 392–402. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.392. ISSN 1939-1315.
  19. 1 2 Hendrick & Hendrick 2006, pp. 152–153
  20. 1 2 Bode, Adam; Kowal, Marta (2023). "Toward consistent reporting of sample characteristics in studies investigating the biological mechanisms of romantic love". Frontiers in Psychology. 14 983419. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.983419. ISSN 1664-1078. PMC 10192910. PMID 37213378.
  21. ↑ Hendrick & Hendrick 2006, pp. 149–150, 152: '[Lee] complained about the ahistorical nature of [most research based on his ideas] and the limited information that he felt could be derived from a rating scale: "There are no satisfactory shortcuts[.] Only elaborate instruments such as the Love Story Card Sort can distinguish between [rich] ideologies[.]" [...] Needless to say, Lee lost his argument against the use of rating scales. [...] Sometime after completing the writing of his chapter for The Psychology of Love, but before its publication, Lee apparently accepted the ubiquity of rating scales, as witnessed by a gracious and complimentary letter to us[.]'
  22. ↑ Hendrick & Hendrick 2006, pp. 151, 156–157
  23. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Karandashev, Victor (December 2022). "Adaptive and Maladaptive Love Attitudes". Interpersona: An International Journal on Personal Relationships. 16 (2): 158–177. doi:10.5964/ijpr.6283.
  24. ↑ Hendrick & Hendrick 2006, p. 150
  25. ↑ Karandashev 2017, p. 60
  26. ↑ Grafton, Anthony; Most, Glenn W.; Settis, Salvatore (2010-10-25). The Classical Tradition. Harvard University Press. pp. 244, 330. ISBN 978-0-674-03572-0.
  27. 1 2 3 4 5 Lee 1988, pp. 42–43, 50
  28. ↑ Lee 1973, pp. 35, 53
  29. ↑ Lee 1977, pp. 10–11
  30. ↑ Lee 1973, pp. 34, 55
  31. ↑ Lee 1973, p. 45
  32. ↑ Lee 1973, p. 54
  33. ↑ Lee 1973, pp. 52–53, 264
  34. ↑ Lee 1973, pp. 53–54
  35. ↑ Hendrick & Hendrick 2006, pp. 154–155
  36. ↑ Hatfield 1988, p. 191
  37. ↑ Lee 1977, pp. 88–90
  38. 1 2 3 4 Hendrick & Hendrick 2006, pp. 156–157
  39. 1 2 3 4 5 White, Jason K.; Hendrick, Susan S.; Hendrick, Clyde (2004). "Big five personality variables and relationship constructs". Personality and Individual Differences. 37 (7): 1519–1530. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.02.019.
  40. ↑ Acevedo, Bianca; Aron, Arthur; Fisher, Helen; Brown, Lucy (5 January 2011). "Neural correlates of long-term intense romantic love". Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. 7 (2): 145–159. doi:10.1093/scan/nsq092. PMC 3277362. PMID 21208991.
  41. ↑ Acevedo, Bianca P.; Poulin, Michael J.; Collins, Nancy L.; Brown, Lucy L. (2020-05-07). "After the Honeymoon: Neural and Genetic Correlates of Romantic Love in Newlywed Marriages". Frontiers in Psychology. 11 634. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00634. ISSN 1664-1078. PMC 7223160. PMID 32457675.
  42. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Lee 1988, p. 44–45, 50
  43. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Lee 1998, pp. 35–38
  44. 1 2 3 Lee 1973, pp. 57–58
  45. ↑ Lee 1973, p. 68
  46. ↑ Lee 1973, pp. 70, 165
  47. ↑ Lee 1973, pp. 207–210
  48. 1 2 3 4 5 Lee 1988, pp. 43–44, 50
  49. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Lee 1973, pp. 77–81, 85–86
  50. 1 2 Lee 1973, p. 83—84
  51. ↑ Lee 1973, p. 90
  52. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Lee 1988, pp. 45–47, 51
  53. ↑ Lee 1977, p. 97
  54. ↑ Lee 1977, pp. 95, 102
  55. ↑ Lee 1977, p. 22
  56. ↑ Tallis 2005, p. 42
  57. 1 2 Lee 1973, pp. 94–97: "The feelings of intensity reported by the [manic] lovers, when looked at alone by covering up the self-controlled behaviour, would have made me predict these cases to be eros. Yet when I covered the intensity data and looked at the self-control factors alone, I would surely have called them ludus. Up to this point in my research I had regarded mania as a primary love[.]
    How could mania be a combination of eros and ludus? It showed none of the self-confident rapport of eros, and the self-control it possessed was desperate (and often futile) compared to the relaxed outward appearance of ludic control. Moreover, mania contained qualities not found in either eros or ludus: self-defeating extremities of emotion, desperate attempts to force reciprocal feeling from the beloved, and inability to enjoy whatever mutuality the beloved did show."
  58. 1 2 Lee 1977, pp. 88–94: "Two qualities [...] stood out. First, these 'manic' lovers (if they were that) had indicated that in many ways they didn't really 'like' the beloved at all. Yet they were intensely preoccupied and obsessed with desire for the partner's love! I had taken Catullus' 'I love and I hate' poetically; now it seemed to hold some literal truth. There was a partial detachment in these lovers that was more typical of my hypothetical ludus than of mania as I had constructed it. Second, these lovers reported a wide range of behavior aimed at self-control of expression and display of emotions. Again, such behavior had been hypothesized under ludus, not mania."
  59. ↑ Lee 1988, p. 54
  60. ↑ Lee 1977, p. 107
  61. ↑ Tallis 2005, p. 42
  62. ↑ Lee 1973, pp. 90–91, 194–196, 230
  63. 1 2 3 Lee, John Alan (November 1975). "The Romantic Heresy". Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue Canadienne de Sociologie. 12 (4): 514–528. doi:10.1111/j.1755-618X.1975.tb00556.x. ISSN 1755-6171.
  64. ↑ Lee 1998, pp. 54–55
  65. 1 2 Hatfield & Walster 1985, pp. 39–40
  66. ↑ 1 Corinthians 13:4–7
  67. ↑ Horstman, Judith (2011-11-15). The Scientific American Book of Love, Sex and the Brain: The Neuroscience of How, When, Why and Who We Love. John Wiley & Sons. p. 4. ISBN 978-1-118-10953-3.
  68. ↑ Berscheid, Ellen (2010). "Love in the Fourth Dimension". Annual Review of Psychology. 61: 1–25. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100318. PMID 19575626.
  69. 1 2 3 4 Lee 1973, pp. 139–141, 146–148
  70. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Lee 1988, pp. 48–49
  71. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Lee 1973, pp. 124–125, 128–131
  72. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Lee 1988, pp. 47–48, 51
  73. 1 2 3 Emanuele, Enzo; Brondino, Natascia; Pesenti, Sara; Re, Simona; Geroldi, Diego (2007). "Genetic loading on human loving styles". Neuro Endocrinology Letters. 28 (6): 815–821. ISSN 0172-780X. PMID 18063936.
  74. ↑ Burkett, James P.; Young, Larry J. (2012). "The behavioral, anatomical and pharmacological parallels between social attachment, love and addiction". Psychopharmacology. 224 (1): 1–26. doi:10.1007/s00213-012-2794-x. ISSN 0033-3158. PMC 3469771. PMID 22885871.
  75. 1 2 Plomin et al. 2000, pp. 75–82, 85, 87, 169, 296–301, 329–331
  76. 1 2 Waller, Niels G.; Shaver, Phillip R. (September 1994). "The Importance of Nongenetic Influences on Romantic Love Styles: A Twin-Family Study". Psychological Science. 5 (5): 268–274. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00624.x. ISSN 0956-7976.

Sources

[edit]
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colour_wheel_theory_of_love&oldid=1365320176"