Lovestyles and Attachment Styles Compared: Their Relations to Each Other and to Various Relationship Characteristics

Abstract

Two studies were conducted to investigate the relative ability of Hendrick & Hendrick's (1986) measure of Lee's (1973) lovestyles and the Hazan & Shaver (1987) measure of attachment styles to predict concurrent relationship characteristics among unmarried dating couples. Relationship characteristics were assessed by the Davis & Todd (1985) Relationship Rating Form (RRF). Sternberg's (1987) Triangular Love Scale (STLS), and an adaptation of Rahim's (1983) Organizational Conflict Inventory. The RRF and STLS showed substantial convergence, suggesting that the Passion and Commitment scales are equivalent but that the RRF Intimacy and STLS Intimacy are not. Three of the lovestyles - Eros, Agape and Ludus - were consistently related to the couple's reports of relationship characteristics. Eros and Agape were associated with Intimacy, Passion, Commitment and Satisfaction and the use of constructive approaches to conflict. Ludus was negatively associated with the same variables. Mania was positively correlated with Passion and an Obliging approach to conflict, but not with high levels of Conflict/Ambivalence nor dissatisfaction. Neither Storge nor Pragma showed expected relationships. The three attachment styles correlated largely as expected, with the Secure style predicting positive relationship characteristics and constructive approaches to conflict and both the Avoidant and Anxious/Ambivalent styles predicting negative relationship characteristics. A factor analysis of the lovestyle and attachment style scores yielded four factors - Factor 1 being defined by the contrast between the Secure versus Avoidant style with Eros also loading positively, Factor 2 being defined by the contrast between Agape and Ludus with Storge and Eros loading positively, Factor 3 being defined by positive loadings of Mania and Anxious/Ambivalent with Storge loading negatively, and Factor 4 defined primarily by Pragma. Our preliminary interpretation is that neither theory of personal styles is complete and that by combining both along the lines suggested by the factor analysis we shall have a more adequate account of the personal styles that contribute to relationship development and satisfaction.