UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Abuse and love : the state of romantic relationships in western culture Van Ginkel, Cynthia Elizabeth 1995

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1995-0558.pdf [ 4.03MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0086939.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0086939-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0086939-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0086939-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0086939-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0086939-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0086939-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0086939-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0086939.ris

Full Text

ABUSE AND LOVE: THE STATE OF R O M A N T I C RELATIONSHIPS I N W E S T E R N C U L T U R E  CYNTHIA ELIZABETH V A N GINKEL B.A., The University of British Columbia, 1992  A THESIS SUBMITTED I N P A R T I A L F U L F I L L M E N T OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR T H E D E G R E E OF M A S T E R OF ARTS in THE F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES (Department of Psychology)  We accept this thesis as confomiing to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH C O L U M B I A August 1995  © Cynthia Elizabeth van Ginkel, 1995  In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the  requirements for an advanced  degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholariy purposes may be granted by the head of my department  or by his  or her representatives.  It is  understood  that  copying or  publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  Department The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  DE-6 (2/88)  Society, Love, and Abuse  ii  Abstract The following studies investigate the self within mtimate relationships from the viewpoint of a theoretical framework which asserts that modern Western relationships are more stressed than they have been in the past or may be in other cultures. This stress is postulated to exist primarily because of the expectation in Western society that intimate relationships will be sustained by "passionate love". As well, broad cultural changes in social networks, work life and religious belief are reviewed. Study one looks at the relationship between emotional abusiveness and passionate love in undergraduates and also replicates the pattern of an abusive personality as identified in physically assaultive samples by Dutton and his colleagues (see Dutton, 1995). This pattern is replicated in both males and females; however, results suggest that the only aspect of emotional abusiveness which correlates with passionate love is jealousy, and only in men. Nonetheless, rates of love were similar in both high and low abuse groups. Study two uses a multidimensional jealousy scale to investigate sex differences found in study one and to clarify the relationship between different forms of jealousy and more or less adaptive relationship behaviour. Study two also attempts to operationalize and test some of the sociocultural theory regarding what relates to relationship stress. Specifically, the relationship between borderline personality organization (BPO), a central feature of both abusiveness and Cushman's (1990) theory of the self in our culture, and social network is assessed. Results suggest that there are different types of jealousy which are differentially correlated with abusiveness and the abusive personality. Results also show that in men closer relationships with mother, partner, work, and second-best friend are  Society, Love, and Abuse  iii  associated with less B P O and identity diffusion. However, this relationship was not strong women. Other sex differences were also detected; potential reasons are discussed.  Society, Love, and Abuse  iv  T A B L E OF CONTENTS Abstract Table of Contents List of Tables List of Figures Acknowledgment  ii iv vi vii viii  INTRODUCTION  1  Filling an Empty Self. The Changing Nature of Work The Loss of God and Love as a Solution Attachment as a Theory of Love: Can it Fit into the Sociohistorical Framework? The Evolution of Self.  1 3 4 8 12  STUDY ONE Predictions  17  Method  17  Participants Materials Procedure  17 18 22  Results  23  Discussion  25  STUDY TWO Multidimensional Jealousy Previously Identified Correlates of Jealousy  28 30  Predictions  32  Method  33  Participants Materials Procedure Results Discussion  •  33 34 35 36 38  Society, Love, and Abuse  G E N E R A L CONCLUSIONS Limitations and Directions for Future Study Final Thoughts References Figures and Tables Appendix  v  45 45 48 50 58 67  Society, Love, and Abuse  vi  L I S T OF T A B L E S 1  Intercorrelations of A l l Study One Variables  59  2  Correlations of Self-Reported Psychological Maltreatment Inventory Jealousy With Other Variables  61  3  Correlations of Behavioural, Cognitive, and Emotional Jealousy With Abuse-Related Variables in Men and Women  62  4.1 Variable Intercorrelations of Three Types of Jealousy and Abuse  63  4.2 Simultaneous Regression Analyses of Three Types of Jealousy on Abuse  63  5  Correlations of Three Types of Jealousy and Social Network Variables  64  6  Correlations of B P O and Social Network Variables  65  7  Means and Standard Deviations B y Sex  66  Society, Love, and Abuse vii  LIST OF FIGURES 1  Correlates of B P O in Undergraduate Males and Females  58  2  Passionate Love and Abuse By Sex  60  Society, Love, and Abuse  viii  Acknowledgments I extend thanks to my committee members, Paul Hewitt and Daniel Perlman, for their time, interest, and helpful suggestions. They should be congratulated for slogging through so much tangential theory in earlier drafts (not to say it all has been eradicated from the present version!). M y advisor, Don Dutton, deserves special recognition for his constant willingness to debate theoretical issues. In particular, I appreciate his guidance in limiting the scope of my wide lens. I was very fortunate to have friends who were encouraging throughout this project. M y relationship with Monica Landolt proved to be very profitable: not only did she help me to clarify my thoughts through many lengthy and combative discussions, but she was also understanding and motivating in times of stress. M y times with her in the lab were always enlivening. Renata Harland's supportive style was a relief at the end of the day when frustration was high. Trips to the gym, walks home, and reciprocal email with Renata became major forms of sustenance, especially towards the end of this research. Christine Stager was ever-assuring, most of all when she was as stressed as I. Christine was always ready with an amazing supply of empathy and humour. I am also indebted to Adam DiPaula for his helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper, his uplifting anti-charm, his example of ardor for work, and his ability to render my workspace just a little more comforting. As well, thanks should go to the ebullient Ken Hemphill who was constantly ready with something to distract me from theoretical angst, computer-related difficulties, and other work-related suffering. M y family was ceaselessly helpful and supportive. M y mother, Anita, was always ready with her technical assistance and spotted far too many dangling modifiers and comma splices. Her comments on the research proposal were especially useful and incisive coming from an out-of-field reader. M y father, Tonnie, listened intently and gave thoughtful feedback. M y parents' efforts to brighten me were always appreciated, even when they didn't work! They continue to serve as primary members of my best friend committee. Finally, I would like to thank James Heming for sharing my ups and downs, my food, a thirst for knowledge, and a sardonic sense of humour.  Society, Love, and Abuse  1  Introduction People in our culture seem to have problems with idealization of romantic relationships: people search for partners not only for procreation but also to acquire a sense of self. This research investigates how various essential aspects of the self in relation to an intimate relationship (identity, love, abusiveness, attachment, and attributions about partner's behaviour) interact within a theoretical framework which asserts that present-day romantic relationships are more stressed than they have been in the past. Central to this research are the following questions: 1), how do culturally-based unrealistic expectations about romantic love show themselves; 2), is it possible that those who are the most emotionally invested in their relationships find themselves most disappointed; and, 3), is this disappointment taken out on the partner?  Filling an empty self Significant evidence suggests that modern Western romance might be an overstated attempt to deal with sociohistoricaily-derived deficits in the concept of "self," fulfilment and love relationships. The definition of self adopted for this paper is that the self is "the concept of the mdividual as articulated by the indigenous psychology of a particular cultural group, the shared understandings within a culture of 'what it is to be human"' (Heelas and Lock, 1981, in Cushman, 1990). Cushman (1990) claims that the current structure of the self in our society is the "empty" self. Inherent in this configuration is the belief that the self needs to be "filled" with something and that the self has little endogenous worth. He defines this self as one which experiences a significant absence of community, tradition, and shared meaning. Cushman  Society, Love, and Abuse  2  contends that these social absences and their consequences are experienced by the self in the form of a lack of personal conviction and worth. These absences are also responsible for creating feelings of chronic, undifferentiated emotional hunger. According to Cushman, inner emptiness may be experienced in many ways including low self-esteem, value confusion, 1  eating disorders, drug abuse, chronic consumerism, a hunger for spiritual guidance, and/or numerous unsuccessful mtirnate relationships; following Cuslrman's argument, most people in Western society would be expected to be affected to some degree by these difficulties. In pursuing his arguments about the state of the self, Cushman often relies on Baumeister's (1987) review of historical pressures on the self. Baumeister identifies a self which has become increasingly difficult to fulfil and which he believes is a direct result of an historical course of development. He defines three problems of fulfilment. The first is how to form a specific concept of one's potential towards which one can strive. The second is how to fulfil that potential. The third problem is how to tolerate the frustration and disappointment associated with nonfijffilment, which is to some degree inevitable. The working definition of fulfilment in this paper is that fulfilment is a type of satisfaction derived from the attainment of goals one has set for oneself based on one's own concept of one's potential. This definition is based on Baumeister's first two problems of fulfilment. Our present emphasis on fulfilment in this life , as opposed to the "next life", and the view that there are unlimited possibilities for 2  fulfilment has made fulfilment more difficult to attain.  Indeed, Campbell and Lavallee (1993) relate low self-esteem to self-concept confusion; therefore, as our society promotes confusion over roles, values, and fulfilment, low self-esteem is likely to be a result. an emphasis which began in the late 18th century 1  2  Society, Love, and Abuse  3  The changing nature of work According to Baumeister (1987), people have traditionally found fulfilment in the areas of work and religion. Three developments during the 19th and 20th centuries suggest that the possibility of finding fulfilment in work has declined or been lost (Baumeister, 1987). First, the relation between producer and customer has become increasingly impersonal, resulting in a kind of alienation of the producer from the satisfaction derived by customers. Second, the meaning of success has changed in that it is the consumption of goods, not the work one does, which is a major indicator of success. Third, the nature of work has changed fundamentally. According to Babbage's (in Baumeister, 1987) economic theories, labor has been re-organized so each worker is only responsible for a small part of the product, rendering work repetitive and making employees lose a sense of identification with the product as a whole. A fourth point, which Baumeister does not discuss, is that many of the products themselves have changed. Products which can be mass produced for the greatest profit margin are favoured over well-made products which will not wear out quickly enough to keep the economy moving; consequently, employees may not even want to identify with the product as a whole. Baumeister is not alone in arguing that work has changed from being intrinsically motivated to being extrinsically motivated. Riesman, Glazer and Denney (1953) go further in suggesting that if one is good at one's craft, one is promoted away from it: a good doctor becomes head of the hospital, spending much of his or her time with paperwork and publicity, not patients; a good teacher becomes a principal, thus ending the majority of his or her teaching.  Society, Love, and Abuse  4  Within such a context it is likely that work has become a very low-quality experience for many (see, e.g., Csikszentnjihalyi, 1990). Csikszentauhalyi suggests that the most important aspect of human life is quality of experience and that optimal experience, which he terms 'flow', occurs when challenges and skills are equal . Clearly, many 3  modern jobs do not lend themselves to such balanced and satisfying experience.  The loss of God and love as a solution Baumeister (1987) also incorporates the decline of religion into his arguments about increasingly infrequent opportunities for fulfilment. He discusses the failure and abandonment of the church in our society and the subsequent loss of a fixed set of answers to life's questions. As Solomon, Greenberg and Pyszczynski (1991) point out, Darwin's theory of evolution has made it extremely difficult to accept a literal interpretation of the Bible. Scientific discoveries have made the scientific worldview a compelling one. Where God used to be the only source of help, we now have effective medical treatments for ailments, fertilizers and water pumps for failing crops, and even sex selection for offspring of choice. Our present conception of reality has severely undermined the religious beliefs which once made almost all individuals feel secure. Apart from security, it has also been postulated that religious values play an important role in forming and mamtaining a sense of identity (Meissner, 1987). Moreover, Becker (1973) describes the predicament of a society which no longer has a god with whom to merge. He believes that the romantic solution is offered to give people a divine  this description of "flow" resembles the definition of fulfilment given previously; indeed, the two are very closely related 3  Society, Love, and Abuse  5  ideal (now that God is lost) witliin which life could be fulfilled. Spiritual and moral needs have 4  been transplanted; investment previously rooted in a god or religion is now localized within a very human intimate partner. In this way, intimate relationships have been expected to bear much of the burden of fulfilment. Correspondingly, Gadlin (1977) recognizes the increasing stress which has been put on the romantic dyad since the early 1800's. He describes the way in which people have been disconnected from the traditional network of social relationships and how couples have become dependent on each other for a depth and range of companionship that previously was provided by a diversity of people within community life. The old economic framework of the home has also fallen away. Gadlin describes how historically, the home was a shop, a farm, or a school and the family was brought together working to maintain the business . The marriage 5  itself was often a business deal between two families or at least a financial arrangement between two individuals. The evolution of the home from a business to a place of refuge from business has left more strain on the personal tie. The entire burden of securing the success of marriage and family life has been placed upon the characteristics and capacities of two people, where previously two families (and/or a family and a business) had been involved. Gadlin (1977) concludes that we have asked more of relationships than they can give. He feels that we are now trying to satisfy, in personal relationships, needs that did not originate in and cannot be satisfied by these relationships. Such burdened relationships fail and, in failing, exacerbate  Dion and Dion (1988) also discuss Western cultural stereotypes of love. They conclude that romantic love as conceptualized by our culture is most likely to happen to people who have an external locus of control. However, while our society promotes romantic portrayals of love, it also encourages citizens to develop an individuahstic and internal locus of control which make the experience of that kind of love less likely. see Thornton (1985) for another good review of social influences on the family 4  5  Society, Love, and Abuse  6  the sense of emotional isolation and distrust which necessitated such burdening of the relationship in the first place. In terms of social isolation (see Weiss, 1987), theories about loneliness can also help us to understand and conceptualize the pressures on intimate relationships. Social isolation (an absence of community) is very common in our society. Socially isolated dyad members may become angry with each other and feel edgy, bored and irritable (Weiss, 1987). In these cases, disappointment in the relationship leads to irritability; the isolated nature of the situation almost dictates that this frustration is taken out on the partner. While some researchers believe that relationships can be sustained by romance, most do not. Branden (1988) is one who believes in the power of romance. He describes love as a "life solution" which is workable for some couples; unfortunately, the kind of couple he describes is composed of very secure individuals with excellent communication skills and no neuroses. Peele (1988) cautions against the view that love is a life solution, a view he claims results from an unrealistic cultural image of love. Many other authors (see, e.g., Williams & Barnes, 1988; Sarnoff & Sarnoff, 1989; Dion & Dion, 1993) believe that the persistent expectation that romantic relationships will meet so many personal fillfilment needs is ultimately destructive to relationships. Consequently, it seems quite clear that selfhood problems which may originate in historical development and cultural values are leading to increasing stress in love relationships. In terms of Cushman's (1990) empty self, people are trying to "fill" themselves with love, romance and intimacy. People attempt to attain this fulfilling love relationship by focusing on one relationship partner upon whom all happiness rests. One type of stress which may relate to  Society, Love, and Abuse  7  this kind of extreme focus of fulfillment is jealousy regarding the partner's separate involvements. Many theorists have suggested that our culture might nurture jealousy. Hansen (1991), for instance, believes that jealousy may be more prevalent in our society than in others because of the number of cross-sex friendships which arise in the work world. Others have postulated that our society may promote high rates of jealousy because of the likelihood that, at some time, we will either lose our partners to a rival or have to share our partners with a rival (Mathes & Severa, 1981). Our society's insistence that individuahty is crucial (see Markus & Kitayama, 1991) may also elevate levels of jealousy. Goodwin and Soon (1994), for instance, investigated differences in self-monitoring and relationship quality. British couples scored more highly on measures of self-monitoring, which was related to higher rates of relationship dissolution. Self-monitoring allows one to "keep all options open" and thus aids in mamtaining individualism and self-fulfilment above relationship success or farnihal harmony: the person remains aware of other relationship possibilities and can pursue the most "desirable" option. Such self-monitoring is bound to encourage jealousy, especially when one is aware that one's partner is also using this type of monitoring for options. Romantic attitudes have also been found to correlate positively with jealousy scores (De Moja, 1986; Lester, Deluca, Helhnghausen and Scribner, 1985); Smith and Bond (1993) claim that romantic conceptions of love are more frequent in individuahstic countries. The nurturing of jealousy and unrealistic love expectations is bound to affect relationships in our culture.  Society, Love, and Abuse  8  Attachment as a theory of love: Can it fit into the sociohistorical framework? Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1980), at present one of the most prominent love theories, facilitates the understanding of the role of love in fimilment. Bowlby believed that the three main defining features of attachment relationships are proximity maintenance (proximity seeking and separation protest), safe haven, and secure base from which to explore the world. In infancy the secure base is usually provided by a parent; if infants feel that they can rely on the parental figure, they will feel safe investigating their surroundings. Numerous studies have been done which relate infant attachment styles to adult attachment to romantic partners (e.g., Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Bartholomew, 1990). In adulthood, the secure base is usually a major love relationship. If providing a secure base is a main purpose of the primary attachment figure in adulthood, as well as childhood, then having a secure base would probably not represent complete fulfilment: one would need to explore from the secure base. As such, attachment theory would also suggest that all fiilfilment needs cannot normally be met by one love partner: exploration in work and/or hobbies is probably also necessary (see Hazan & Shaver, 1990). Adult attachment theorists believe that the infant's experiences with its early caregivers create a set of expectations for later experiences which are resistant to change (Rothbard & Shaver, 1994). These expectations serve as "internal working models" (Collins & Read, 1990) which remain fairly impressionable in early childhood; however, with age, they become somewhat inflexible. The four attachment labels which will be used throughout this paper are secure, fearful, preoccupied, and dismissing. Bartholomew (1990) believes that these four  Society, Love, and Abuse  9  attaclrment styles differ in perceived positivity of self and others. People who are securely attached have high self-esteem and believe that others are also generally good; they feel comfortable being emotionally close to others and being alone. Someone with a fearful attachment style has both low self-esteem and a lack of esteem for others; he/she feels uncomfortable being alone but is also uncomfortable with intimacy. Preoccupied attachment is characterized by low self-esteem and a high opinion of others; these people are desperate to be close to other people. Dismissing attachment is theoretically opposite to preoccupied and is related to high self-esteem and a low opinion of others; these people try to avoid intimacy and feel most secure when they are self-reliant. Attachment theory also lends support to the idea that romantic partners have been expected to provide security which was once provided by religion. Kirkpatrick and Shaver (1992) have found that romantic love partners and God may, to some extent, fulfil similar functions and meet similar attachment needs. Obviously, God as an attachment figure would meet attachment needs slightly differently than another human would. For instance, in the case of God as attachment figure, proximity maintenance might be accomplished through frequent church visits, meditation, or prayer: a metaphorical hug as opposed to the seeking of a literal one. Similarly, the safe haven aspect of attachment to God would have to exist on a spiritual level so that the safe haven was the church building, or even more removed from the tangible world such as reading the Bible, or thhiking a certain way, and so on. Kirkpatrick and Shaver further found that two secure attachments (one to God and one to a love partner) appear to be better than one, and one is better than none.  Society, Love, and Abuse 10 Shaver and Hazan (1988) believe that a real advantage of attachment theory is that it conceptualizes love in terms of biology, not culture. This idea would tend to suggest that attachment cannot be modified by culture; however, attachment theory does not necessitate this interpretation; indeed, there is evidence to suggest otherwise. For instance, in van IJzendoorn's (1990) review of attachment he found that certain groups which are especially socioeconomically stressed there are higher than average rates of anxiously attached children. Our emphasis on individual fulfilment in life may also increase the number of children with insecure attachments as parents strive to reclaim passion in their lives and fulfil themselves while responding to the needs of their children erratically. Alternatively, people in highly stressed groups might expect their young children to fulfil the parents' attachment needs, thus reversing the traditional attachment relationship and not allowing the child to use the parent as a secure base. Marvin and Stewart (1990) also found that a parents' social network and social life can affect the attachment style of their child; this data suggests that attachment style can easily be modified by early environment. Though a biological drive for attachment may exist, it does not necessarily follow that rates of attachment styles are biologically pre-programmed and cannot be modified by culture. A key reason some attachment theorists insist on explaining love in terms of biology is that they believe romantic love has always existed (Shaver & Hazan, 1988). However, just because instances of romantic love can be found in almost any culture in almost any historical period (see, e.g., Rosenblatt, 1967, Philbrick & Opolot, 1980; Hatfield & Rapson, 1987 & 1993; see Hendrick & Hendrick, 1992, for a thorough review of the status of love research), it does not follow that romantic love has always been the "glue" in relationships, as it is now. In  Society, Love, and Abuse 11  this sense one can recognize Modern Western love as an invention because it has been "invented" as the panacea for all problems. Hatfield and Rapson (1993) claim that most researchers view love as a cultural universal that is shaped by culture; one's culture detenrines how love is experienced and expressed. Hatfield and Rapson believe that although passionate love has always existed, it has rarely been encouraged. Similarly, in other societies, attachment style may well frame social experiences throughout the lifetime but intimate relationships are maintained by beliefs and support structures other than romantic love. One may have a dismissing attachment style but still maintain a marriage because of other beliefs about role, tradition, and duty. Most attachment theorists believe that attachment needs exist throughout a person's life, and are not only paramount in infancy and childhood: a secure base is always important. There is also evidence to suggest that all attachment needs do not have to be met by only one person, or that attachment styles can only be manifest in relation to one significant other; in other cultures, for instance, a number of people may meet attachment needs. A n extended family, a close social network or God could fill many or most attachment needs. Shaver and Hazan (1988) suggest that this kind of diffiision of attachment may lessen the intensity of passionate love feelings and full investment in the singular other . It could probably be argued 6  that one primary attachment figure would still exist even when an individual is "attached" to many. The other relationships probably serve as secondary attachments and as paths to exploration (which may be the root of fulfilment), as these relationships may be with a coworker, an exercise partner, a fellow music fan, and so on. Nonetheless, this possible diffusion  Shaver and Hazan (1988) do not imply that this kind of lessening of intensity would necessarily be negative. 6  Society, Love, and Abuse 12  of attachment is essential: it is likely that abusiveness in relationships and other relationship difficulties are related to unrealistic expectations about the capacity of one person to fulfil thenpartner's needs. A wider base of attachment relationships and/or paths to exploration may be critical to lessening the burden on love. Thus, in terms of attachment theory it would seem that our society has taken the safe haven feature of love and made it the centre of fulfilment. Unfortunately, safe haven is only one aspect of love relationships and cannot be expected to bear all the burden of life fulfilment and satisfaction. Study two will examine these issues in more detail. However, for the purposes of study one it is important to recognize that while attachment theory has been presented by many as culture-free, it can fit into a culturally-based interpretation of love.  The evolution of self To this point, the sociohistorical impact on the self and relationships has been discussed. As well, attachment theory, as one of the most prominent theories of love at present, has been theoretically integrated into a sociohistorical model. In the next section borderline personality organization (BPO) will be discussed. Cushman (1990), among others (see, e.g., Lasch, 1978), believes that borderline symptoms have become increasingly prevalent in our society due to our configuration of the self. Taylor (1991) suggests that in our culture, intimate relationships are viewed as the prime loci of self- exploration and se//-discovery. This emphasis on self within a dyad is likely to have important consequences for romantic relationships, especially since any self and  Society, Love, and Abuse 13  identity-related difficulty would become most salient in the intimate context and potentially stress the relationship. Borderline personality organization (BPO is similar to borderline personality disorder but not as severe) is one such identity-related personality organization. BPO is characterized by (1) a proclivity for intense, unstable interpersonal relationships which involve intermittent undernunuig of the partner, manipulation, and masked dependency; (2) an unstable sense of self, with intolerance of being alone and abandonment anxiety; and (3) intense anger, being demanding, and impulsiveness (Gunderson, 1984). BPO would appear to be a self-related difficulty which becomes prominent within an intimate dyad. While Taylor (1991) suggests that it is exploration of the self which occurs in an intimate relationship, the characteristics of BPO are consistent with a more extreme approach: people with BPO need romantic relationships to identify a self. Such people are afraid of being abandoned not only because they will lose the partner, but because they will lose access to a critical aspect of their own self. Along this same line, jealousy has been characterized as a response to a relationship threat or a threat to selfesteem (White & Mullen, 1989). However, in those who are high in BPO, a relationship threat is a threat to self-esteem. As a result, people who are high in BPO feel intense anger toward the partner upon whom they are so dependent. This amalgam of anger and dependence can easily lead to attempted control of the partner, which materializes as abusiveness. For example, Dutton and colleagues have found a positive relationship between Borderline Personality Organization and physical and emotional abusiveness in both a population of assaultive males and normal controls (Dutton & Starzomski, 1993; Dutton, 1994). Dutton, Saunders, Starzomski and Bartholomew (1994) also  Society, Love, and Abuse  14  found that B P O was positively related to both fearful and preoccupied attachment styles (though more strongly correlated with fearful attachment) in a population of wife assaulters. Starzomski and Dutton (1994) identified a positive correlation between negative relationship attributions and abusiveness in a population of undergraduate males. Dutton and Ryan (1992) found that B P O was related to parental rejection (rejection by the parent). Dutton and colleagues have integrated these findings into a unified description of an "abusive personality" in which B P O is central, but which also includes anger, fearful attachment, negative attributions, and parental rejection. A question which follows from the discussion of characteristic relationships of those who are high in B P O is how feelings of love fit into these relationships. Is it possible that people who are high in B P O are desperately trying to maintain a relationship they feel is necessary to sustain them (and about which they have strong feelings of love), while also dealing with high levels of anger and anxiety? A major facet of love which our media presents to us is the very passionate yet also abusive relationship. In Millon's (1987) discussion of the sociocultural trends to which he attributes the increase in BPD, he discusses the role of television models: The rapidly moving, emotionally intense, and interpersonally capricious character of T V role models, displayed in swiftly progressing half-hour vignettes that encompass a lifetime, add to the impact of disparate, highly charged and largely inimical value standards and behavior models. What is incorporated is not only a multiphcity of selves, but an assemblage of unintegrated and discordant roles, displayed indecisively and fitfully...these T V characters and story plots present...precisely those features of social behaviour and emotionality that come to characterize the affective and interpersonal ^stabilities of the borderline.  Society, Love, and Abuse 15  Although Hollywood-style passionate love is portrayed as not only desirable, but also attainable and probably necessary for relationship success in our culture, in many ways this kind of love resembles emotional abuse. If the erratic and contradictory nature of T V life had 7  been instilled in some Western citizens, it is possible that passion and abusiveness may 8  coincide; people who are high in BPO are especially likely to have these types of intense and unstable relationships. Therefore, another goal of this research is to establish whether an "intense" aspect of B P O relationships results not only in abusiveness, but also in feelings of passion.  9  Before discussing study one, it should be mentioned that this research hinges on the usefulness of the B P O construct in a "normal" population. There is a considerable basis for the supposition that borderline symptoms are present in most people in our society on a continuum ranging from minor to severe. Various theorists have suggested a link between our cultural 10  values and the selfhood problems of our era (e.g., Cushman, 1990; Albee, 1982 & 1986; Sampson, 1977 & 1985). Millon (1987), for instance, presents a social learning perspective to account for the prevalence of borderline personality disorder. He cites two major aspects of society which have made B P D more common. First, many of our social customs exacerbate errant parent-child relationships. Second, institutions and social customs, such as religion and  Peele (1988) would agree that what has been labeled love by psychological theory often approaches social and individual pathology. Millon (1987) suggests that for those who have "comfortably internalized models of real human relationships" T V role models may not have much of an effect. These seemingly incompatible aspects of relationships are compatible with the splitting defense used by borderlines in which opposite feelings or reactions exist together and are not intergrated into a balanced whole. As such, even mild borderline symptoms are expected to be positively correlated to other mild dysfunctions. 7  8  9  10  Society, Love, and Abuse 16  extended families, which may once have compensated for such relationship problems have lost much of their power. For instance, Millon feels that children in our culture must make life choices without the guidance or framework of accepted and durable cultural traditions. Therefore, if the parent-child relationship is less than ideal, the child has little guidance from the society at large. One clear consequence of such social absences is a sense of aloneness. Shaver and Rubenstein (1980) claim that although therapists tend to disagree about how to characterize borderline patients, they do agree that abandonment and loneliness are common themes. Cushman would argue that abandonment and loneliness are cultural themes and that there is a clear historical route leading to this centrality of aloneness. There is no reason to believe that these societal changes have only affected some people in a very severe way: it is more likely that such developments have had broad effects on our society. In view of these cultural values and the likelihood that B P O symptoms are prevalent in many citizens in our culture, it is sensible to investigate B P O in non-clinical samples; quite possibly, some of the issues affecting clinical samples may be present in the rest of society. Thus, the purpose of this research is to determine if B P O is related to emotional abusiveness, anger, negative attributions, attachment style and parental treatment in undergraduate men and women? Five aspects of emotional abusiveness will be assessed: jealousy; withdrawal from the partner; isolation of the partner from others; undermining of the partner's self-esteem; and, verbal abuse. Positive behaviour in the relationship and its relationship to passionate love will also be measured. A primary goal of this research is to replicate the B P O pattern found by Dutton and colleagues in an undergraduate sample.  Society, Love, and Abuse 17  Specific predictions 1. A replication of Dutton and colleagues' findings about B P O in a sample of undergraduate men and women was expected. More specifically, it was expected that B P O would correlate positively with emotional abusiveness, anger, negative attributions about the partner's behaviour, parental rejection, and fearful attachment style. As this undergraduate sample was expected to be fairly non-violent, an emotional abuse measure was used instead of the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS; Straus, 1979), which was used by Dutton and Starzomski to assess physical abuse. Emotional abuse is more common than physical abuse (Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980), even in physically assaultive populations (Dutton & Starzomski, 1993). 2. The relationship between aspects of emotional abusiveness, BPO, and passionate love is also investigated. The six subscales of the Psychological Maltreatment Inventory (Kasian & Painter, 1992) and the BPO (Oldham et. al., 1985) subscales are investigated as possible correlates of the Passionate Love Scale (Hatfield & Sprecher, 1986). It has been suggested in the introduction to this paper that BPO and abusiveness may relate to passionate love. In this study a positive linear correlation between these abuse-related variables and love was postulated. As well, levels of love and abuse in those high and low in B P O are compared.  STUDY 1 Method Participants Undergraduate couples at the University of British Columbia participated in the study for course credit. Since participants who had been fully socialized in Western culture were  Society, Love, and Abuse 18  desired, only people who were of European descent participated in the study. Various important cultural differences have been discovered in regard to the self (e.g., Markus and Kitayama, 1991) and relationships ( e.g., Hendrick and Hendrick, 1986; Simmons, Vom Koike & Shimizu, 1986). As these issues are central to this study, it was desirable to assess "Western" participants and form a theoretical model before venturing into the many complications of cross-cultural research. There were two other requirements for participation: 1), participants had to agree to bring their partners with them to the study; and 2), they had to have been dating their present partner for at least four months. Seventy-seven participants met these criteria (39 men and 38 women). The mean 11  relationship length reported by the men was 22.69 months (SD=17.3; range 5-91 months) and their average age was 22.18 (SD=5.2; range 18-47). The mean relationship length reported by the women was 24.42 months (SD=17.3; range 5-91 months) and their average age was 21.11 (SD=4.74; range 18-43). Seventy of the participants were born in Canada, seven were born elsewhere.  Materials (also see Appendix). 1. Love. Hatfield and Sprecher's (1986) Passionate Love Scale (PLS) was used for self-ratings of passionate love. The scale has an alpha coefficient of 0.94. It is composed of 30 items and three subscales: passionate behaviour ("If  were going through a difficult time, I  would put away my own concerns to help him/her out."), passionate cognitions ("Sometimes I  Most of these participants were couples; the disparity between the number of men and women is due to the fact that some participants had partners who were not of European descent. In these cases, only the European-descent partner was used as a participant although partner reports were gathered from the "non-participant" partner. 11  Society, Love, and Abuse 19  feel I can't control my thoughts, they are obsessively on would feel deep despair i f  ."), and passionate emotions ("I  left me."). Hendrick and Hendrick (1989) found that the PLS  measures passionate love, not liking or other related constructs, and has excellent internal consistency. This scale correlates reliably with other measures of love and positive relationship characteristics. 2. Attachment style. The Relationship Styles Questionnaire (RSQ; Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994a) is a 30-item self-report measure with items drawn from Hazan and Shaver's (1987) attachment measure, Bartholomew and Horowitz's (1991) Relationship Questionnaire, and Collins and Read's (1990) Adult Attachment Scale. Measures of each of the four attachment patterns (secure, fearful, preoccupied, and dismissing) identified by Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) were created by summing four or five items from the corresponding prototypic descriptions. Items include: "I find it easy to get emotionally close to others" which measures secure attachment, "I find it difficult to trust others completely" which is a fearful subscale item, and "I am comfortable without close emotional relationships" which measures dismissing attachment style, and reverse scored, is included in the preoccupied subscale. Each attachment style is supposed to differ in positivity or negativity in beliefs about self or other. The RSQ attachment scores show convergent validity with interview ratings of the four attachment patterns (Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994a). Feeney, Noller and Hanrahan (1994) and Griffin and Bartholomew (1994b) have found support for four, rather than three (e.g., Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Shaver & Hazan 1988), adult  Society, Love, and Abuse 20 attachment styles. Note that each participant receives a continuous rating for each attachment pattern. 3. Borderline Personality Organization. The Self-Report Instrument for Borderline Personality Organization (BPO; Oldham et al., 1985) is a 30-item measure composed of three subscales: (a) identity diffusion ( a poorly integrated sense of self or of significant others), (b) primitive defenses (sphtting, idealization, devaluation, omnipotence, denial, projection, and projective identification), and (c) reality testing (external vs. internal origins of perceptions, evaluation of own behaviour in terms of social criteria of reality, differentiation of self from nonself, etc.). Identity cliffusion items include "I see myself in totally different ways at different times," the primitive defense subscale includes "uncontrollable events are the cause of my drfficulties," and reality testing is measured by items such as "I hear things that other people claim are not really there." Cronbach's alpha for the subscales is .92, .87, and .84 for identity diffusion, primitive defenses, and reality testing, respectively. 4. Relationship attributions. The Relationship Attribution Measure ( R A M ; Fincham & Bradbury, 1992) was used to assess negativity of attributions about partner's behaviour. The scale measures causality and responsibility for negative behaviour using six aspects of attributions: stability, blame, intent, motivation, globality and locus. Four partner behaviours (e.g., "your spouse begins to spend less time with you") were followed by six attributions (e.g., "my spouse deserves to be blamed for spending less time with me") which are rated by participants on a six-point scale ranging from disagree strongly to agree strongly. 5. Anger. The Multidimensional Anger Inventory (MAI; Siegel, 1986) is a 38item self-report scale assessing the following dimensions of anger response: frequency,  Society, Love, and Abuse 21  duration, magnitude, mode of expression, hostile outlook, and range of anger eliciting situations. Items include "it is easy to make me angry," "when I get angry I stay angry for hours," and "I often feel angrier than I think I should," for frequency, duration, and magnitude, respectively. Siegel reports the results of a factor analysis of this scale and the rehability of its subscales (coefficient alpha= .51 to .83) and the scale as a whole (coefficient alpha .84 and .89 for two separate samples). The scale was validated by correlation with other conceptually similar anger inventories. 6. Recollections of early childrearing. The Egna Minnen Betraffande Uppfostran ( E M B U ; Perris, Jacobsson, Lindstrom, von Knorring, & Perris, 1980) is an 80-item scale that assesses memories of parental rearing behaviour. The E M B U was originally developed in Sweden and has been translated and widely used with Englishspeaking subjects (Gerslma, Emmelkamp, & Arrindell, 1990). Items include "my parent showed an interest in my own interests and hobbies" and "my parent wished I had been like somebody else." The psychometric properties of the English scale were developed by Ross, Campbell, and Clayter (1982). A recent review by Brewin, Andrews, and Gotlib (1993) indicated that psychopathology does not, in itself generate unreUability in retrospective reports of early experience. Cronbach's alpha for the E M B U is .80, and rehability alpha is .82 (Ross et al., 1982). 7. Emotional abuse. The Kasian and Painter (1992) Psychological Maltreatment Inventory (PMI) was used to assess emotional abuse. The PMI is based on Tolman's (1989) Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory (PMWI) but the PMI can be used with men and women. The P M I contains 58 items rated from "never" (0) to "more than twenty times"(6)  Society, Love, and Abuse 22  that cover forms of emotional and verbal abuse which have occurred during the last year. The P M I psychological maltreatment items include: "my partner accused me of seeing another man/woman," "my partner tried to turn my family and friends against me," "my partner gave me the silent treatment," "my partner swore at me," and "my partner put down my appearance" for subscales jealousy, isolation and emotional control, withdrawal, verbal abuse, and undermining of partner's self-esteem, respectively. The P M I also has a positive behaviour subscale which includes items such as "my partner was affectionate with me" and "my partner said things to encourage me." All subscales have alpha coefficients of .7 or greater. Participants completed a P M I regarding their own behaviour and another reporting on their partner's behaviour. 8. Social desirability. The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960) was given to participants to measure impression management. Paulhus (1991) reports that the Marlowe-Crowne measures a participant's tendency to respond in a deceptive manner. Procedure When participants arrived for the study they were separated from their partners. They were then assured of the confidentiality of their responses, and that their partners would not see their questionnaires. The package took approximately one hour to complete. Participants completed the questionnaires alone or in small groups. When participants were finished they were verbally debriefed and given a written explanation of the study and were led to an area where they could wait for their partner to finish. The same female experimenter greeted and  Society, Love, and Abuse 23  debriefed all participants. Half of the questionnaires were reverse-ordered; no effects for order of questionnaire were observed. Results  12  As shown in Figure 1, the pattern of correlations which Dutton and Starzomski (1993) found in wife assaulters has been replicated in male and female college students; only one correlation is not significant. Therefore, BPO correlates significantly with emotional abuse, 13  anger, fearful attachment, negative attributions and parental rejection. In men all expected correlations reach significance. In women, the correlation between BPO and paternal rejection is not significant (p<. 10). Correlational analysis is used to investigate the postulated relationship between emotional abuse, BPO, and passionate love; this relationship was not very strong (see Table 1). The only correlation between the BPO and PLS subscales is between the B P O primitive defenses subscale and the PLS passionate behaviour subscale (r=.34;p<.05), in men only. The only P M I subscales which are related to passion were the positive behaviour and jealousy subscales, and once again, only in men. The Pearson correlation between passionate love and positive behaviour in men is .34, p<.05. In women, passionate love and positive behaviour are unrelated. A scatterplot generated to scratinize the spread of PLS and P M I scores reveals that there is little variance. Reports of abuse are generally low and passionate love high in both sexes (see Figure 2), placing the majority of correlations in one quadrant of the scatterplot.  A l l correlations use the full sample of 39 men and 38 women, except for a few correlations which are based on 38 men due to missing data. As well, correlations using the Marlowe-Crowne are based on 36 men and 35 women due to missing items in that scale for a few respondents. Patterns of relationships presented in this section hold when Marlowe-Crowne social desirability is partialled out of correlations. A l l these correlations were tested using one-tailed tests. 12  13  Society, Love, and Abuse 24  Jealousy subscale (self-reports) correlations are presented in Table 2. As jealousy is an internal state, self-reports of jealousy are used in this sample. Many of the jealousy subscale items could be most accurately self-reported as they did not necessitate the partner experiencing them (e.g., 'T was jealous of other men/women" is more an emotional question than one regarding behaviour the partner would necessarily have experienced). Jealousy does not correlate significantly with attachment style in either sex. The jealousy profile for each sex is quite different. In men, self-reported jealousy is positively related to passionate love, BPO, negative attributions, anger, and partner reports of emotional abuse (niinus jealousy subscale). In women, jealousy is only related to partner reports of emotional abuse (minus jealousy subscale). A stepwise multiple regression analysis is performed on jealousy to identify which predictive variables account for the most variance in jealousy scores. While all predictive variables are entered into the equation, the regression analysis reveals that the B P O primitive defenses subscale and passionate behaviour subscale of the PLS account for 47% (p<0001) of the variance in self-reported jealousy scores in men. In women, none of these variables accounts for significant variance when entered in a regression equation. While no linear correlation was found between B P O and passionate love, comparisons of the mean PLS scores in those who score high and low in B P O reveals that while abuse rates are very different in the two groups, levels of passion are not. This relationship holds for both sexes. In women, mean abuse rates for those scoring above or below the median on BPO are 57.8 and 33.6, repectively. Conversely, the mean PLS score is 173.6 for both groups. In men,  Society, Love, and Abuse 25  mean rates of abuse in those scoring high or low in BPO are 59.1 and 25.3, respectively. However, mean PLS scores for the same groups are 165.3 and 161.1, repectively.  Discussion The replication of Dutton and colleagues' pattern in a sample of females, as well as college males, is promising. This finding suggests that different kinds of abuse with varying degrees of severity are related to the same variables. Very abusive people are, possibly, merely extreme but, perhaps, not qualitatively different from their less abusive counterparts. EstabUshing that an "abusive personality" may exist on a continuum, and that this personality appears to factor into abusive behaviour in quite different groups lends credence to the investigation of this kind of relationship stress in non-clinical samples. This finding should not only be looked on as a simple replication because its implications are considerable: if Dutton's abusive personality research can be extended to "normal" (or at least undergraduate) populations, and if B P O is on the increase in "normal" Western society, as has been suggested, then it is likely that the correlates of B P O are also prevalent in "normal" populations. Therefore, intimate abusiveness may not be an extraordinary occurrence. The implications of such a situation are obviously extremely important to families and romantic partners. The general correlation of emotional abusiveness and B P O with passionate love that was postulated was not evident. However, this result does not imply that there is no coincidence of passionate love and maladaptive relationship behaviour or that relationships with high levels of passionate love are the ideal: in fact, no significant correlation was found between passionate love and positive relationship behaviour in women and levels of passion  Society, Love, and Abuse 26  were found to be similar in abusive and non-abusive relationships. It is probable that there are subsamples: some people who receive high PLS scores are also abusive, as in the 'hot" on again/off again love which Hollywood gives us. However, other loving couples who also score Mghly on the PLS are probably much more sedate in their love, and the extremity of their love emotions is not related to other extreme feelings and behaviours. PMI-type jealousy may almost always be representative of the abusiveness which characterizes Hollywood passion, while the other P M I subscales measure actions which occur only in subtypes of passionate relationships; as such, a linear relationship between these subscales and love is not present. Moreover, there could be other variables mediating the relationship between love and abusiveness. While some who are involved in a romantic relationship find the tie to be stressed because they lack the support of an extended family, others may have these support structures. In study two the potential mtervening variable of closeness to a social network is investigated as lessening the symptoms of BPO. A further element which would affect the likelihood of fmding a significant correlation between love and abuse in this sample is that reported rates of abuse (by both partners) are consistently low and reports of passion are quite high. This search for a possible correlation, not just a co-occurence, of passion and abuse should not be abandoned until the null hypothesis is observed in other samples where there is greater spread in abuse rates and passion levels. Indeed, the relationship between expectations of passion and relationship realities is extremely important in samples such as married couples as a lessening of passion could be more serious than in undergraduate relationships: in a marriage with children it is difficult to extricate oneself regardless of changing feelings; in a short term relationship with no  Society, Love, and Abuse 27 major joint assets one can just terminate the involvement. In all likelihood, it is the more longterm relationships in Western society which suffer most under the unrealistic expectations of love. Finally, sex differences in patterns of abusiveness and other variables were not predicted; as such, the large sex differences found in relation to jealousy were not expected. It would appear that for men PMI jealousy can be related to adaptive or maladaptive personality and relationship variables but, for women, PMI jealousy is mainly maladaptive. Social learning theory suggests that men are brought up to be less comfortable with intimacy than women. Perhaps, in men, strong feelings of love are more likely to be associated with fear and/or anger and, thus, love can be related to the pathological checking behaviours of certain types of jealousy, as well as to feelings of passion and positive relationship behaviours. Regardless of the origin of intimacy (nscomfort in males, it is possible that for males love may be related to 14  variables such as jealousy which have been looked on as maladaptive. Study two will further investigate these sex differences. STUDY 2 In the introduction to this paper the sociohistorical effects on relationships were described. Admittedly, such historically-derived theory cannot be empirically tested using only contemporary data. However, it is possible to look v^thin our culture to see if the theory fits. Although the contention that love relationships are more stressed in our culture at this time cannot be tested, the idea that a close tie to God, work, or to an extended social network may lessen romantic stress is testable. In study two the mteivening variables which may represent  As van Sommers (1988) claims, though the origins ofjealousy are theoretically interesting, in practice, they may be beside the point. 14  Society, Love, and Abuse 28  exploration or a diffuse primary attachment (in attachment theory terms) will be examined. Theoretically, strong ties outside the romantic dyad may affect relationship stress. In this study, closeness to family members, friends, God, and work will be used as potential mtervening variables which lessen BPO in individuals and, therefore, stress within a couple as well.  Multidimensional jealousy Study one found that PMI jealousy was related to maladaptive behaviour (abuse) in women but, in men, it was related to both adaptive and maladaptive aspects of relationships (love and abuse, respectively). To ihuminate the underlying factors, this study will focus on the three types of jealousy discussed by Pfeiffer and Wong (1989): emotional, behavioural and cognitive jealousy. These authors believe that emotional jealousy is usually a response to a relationship threat; as such, emotional jealousy is primarily rational: feeling upset is not an unusual reaction to seeing one's partner flirting with another. Cognitive jealousy emphasizes 15  a person's paranoid worries and suspicions about his or her partner's infidelity. Jealous behaviours are conceptualized by Pfeiffer and Wong as detective and protective behaviours. Examples of detective actions are checking up on the partner and searching through the partner's belongings, while protective strategies involve mterveriing between the partner and a relationship rival (real or imagined). One of the main differences between this theoretical framework and that of White and colleagues (e.g., White & Mullen, 1989) is that the three types of jealousy can occur simultaneously and interact with one another; White views jealousy  but it may also occur as a conditioned response to certain stimuli, in the absence of a perceived threat to a relationship  Society, Love, and Abuse 2 9 as a sequence of cognition-emotion-behaviour. As well, Pfeiffer and Wong believe that their theory encompasses irrational elements ofjealousy, while White's theory is primarily rational. Pfeiffer and Wong also describe the differences between 'normal" and "pathological" jealousy, both of which may be associated with each of the three types ofjealousy. They 16  believe that normal jealousy involves appraisal of a real threat and involves emotional upset and protective behaviours. Alternatively, pathological jealousy might involve imagined threats, paranoia, severe emotional upset and/or detective behaviours. These authors contend that most scales assess normal jealousy but that their multidimensional scale best assesses pathological 17  as well as normal jealousy. It should be mentioned that the jealousy subscale of the PMI used in study 1 is composed mainly of items which Pfeiffer and Wong would categorize as jealous behaviours (e.g., "I monitored my partner's time and made her/him account for her/his whereabouts"). Therefore, the relationship between behavioural jealousy and the variables used in study one is of great interest, and may help us to further understand the sex differences we found there. It is possible that in women other types ofjealousy, such as emotional jealousy, are not entirely negative, or maladaptive, as appeared to be the case in study one. Dutton (1995) believes that jealousy is symptomatic of chronic abandonment anxiety especially when it is characterized by delusions and/or distortions. Therefore, it is expected that cognitive and behavioural jealousy (which are most related to delusions and distortions) will be positively related to fearful attachment, BPO, anger, and recollections of parental rejection.  although cognitive and behavioural jealousy do reflect distrust while emotional jealousy does not seem to; the former seem to be most closely related to pathological jealousy, certainly when they are not justified by reality. Most scales assess emotional jealousy (e.g. Mathes & Severa's [1981] Interpersonal Jealousy Scale; Bringle and colleagues' Self-Report Jealousy Scale, [in White & Mullen, 1989]). 16  17  Society, Love, and Abuse 30  While Clanton and Kosins (1991) found that jealousy was not related to parental support or criticism, Bringle's (1991) description of a transactional model of jealousy supports the idea that jealousy would be related to prior experiences. Bringle claims that various aspects of the individual and the situation determine what will be a stimulus for jealousy. Clanton and Kosins used a jealousy scale composed mainly of emotional jealousy items, but also of items which may fall under different dimensions of jealousy; however, they treated the scale as unidimensional. Perhaps, had they excluded the emotional items in their scale, they would have found a positive correlation between parental criticism and jealousy, if criticism is related to rejection. These authors conclude prematurely that jealousy may be useful and adaptive, when not all kinds ofjealousy may be so.  Previously identified correlates ofjealousy The postulated relationship between a social network and dyadic stress has already been outlined in this paper. It was suggested that if the couple was enmeshed in a close social network, the stress on the single dyad could be lessened. Consistent with this argument, Pines and Aronson (1983) found that stronger extra-marital interests and activities were associated with less jealousy. Similarly, Mathes and Severa (1981) found that couples who cultivate separate identities through independent activities are less jealous. As previously stated, Hazan and Shaver (1988) have also suggested that an emphasis on friendships and a large family may lessen the intensity of the primary attachment. Likewise, according to Parks and Eggert (1991), there are interdependencies between the couple and surrounding networks, and study two is expected to find evidence of such.  Society, Love, and Abuse 31 While Mcintosh and Tate (1990) found that involvement was not significantly related to jealous behaviours, the behaviours they used were behaviours responding to infidelity (coping behaviours), not pathological detective behaviours. It is likely that the interdependencies between the couple and others are evident in rates of cognitive and behavioural jealousy but not in the level of emotional jealousy which is more of a reaction to a real relationship threat. In this study, it is anticipated that closeness to others outside the primary relationship will be associated with lower levels of behavioural and cognitive jealousy. In terms of attachment, a significant jealousy-attachment relationship was not observed in study one. However, other studies have encountered such a relationship. Hazan and Shaver (1987), for instance, found that jealousy was highest in those with an anxious-ambivalent attachment style, less common in those with an avoidant attachment style, and least prevalent in those with a secure attachment style. Dutton, Saunders, Starzomski and Batholomew (1994) found that both fearful and preoccupied attachment were positively correlated with jealousy, while secure attachment was negatively correlated with jealousy. Attachment style has previously been used successfully to predict jealous responses (Radecki-Bush, Farrell, & Bush, 1993). A n anxious child spends much energy assuring his or herself of the availability of their parent and of the security of their relationship. This energy is expended in such activities as checking on the parent; this kind of checking could be closely paralleled in adult jealousy and the accompanying mistrustful behaviours. Theory would suggest that there should be a positive relationship between jealousy and preoccupied and fearful attachment. In study one, the correlation between fearful attachment and jealousy approached significance (p< 10) in men (but this was not the case in women). It is possible that the relationship between jealousy and  Society, Love, and Abuse 32 attachment is too weak to be revealed in a sample of the size used in study one. Alternatively, the PMI jealousy subscale is likely not as thorough as a longer jealousy scale. It is predicted that a multidimensional scale will identify a jealousy-attachment style relationship, especially between fearful attachment and cognitive and behavioural jealousy.  Predictions 1. BPO, emotional abusiveness, anger, parental rejection, and fearful attachment are expected to positively correlate with cognitive and behavioural jealousy but not with emotional jealousy. We expect to find that emotional jealousy is positively correlated with love (as found by Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989). Pfeiffer and Wong found that cognitive jealousy was negatively related to love in both sexes; it will be interesting to see if the sex difference which appeared in study one arise again. It is predicted that the three types of jealousy on this scale will show that cognitive and behavioural jealousy are more related to abuse than emotional jealousy, as cognitive and behavioural jealousy have become part of our focus as abuse-related measures of relationship stress. 2. Cognitive and behavioural jealousy will be related to negative attributions, but emotional jealousy will not be. Though attributions have been studied in relation to the development of relationships (Fletcher, Fincham, Cramer, & Heron, 1987), social-comparison jealousy (Mikulincer, Bizman, & Aizenberg, 1989), and actual partner infidelity (Buunk, 1991) they have not been related to "unwarranted" romantic jealousy. The role of attributions in romantic jealousy is important because it is possible to help people better understand their  Society, Love, and Abuse 33  attributions and, perhaps, also alleviate a certain amount of cognitive and behavioural jealousy, which would seem most related to attributions. 3. Behavioural and cognitive jealousy are expected to correlate negatively with strength and number of other (non-romantic) relationships and involvements. 4. People who are less connected or embedded in a minimal range of relationships and activities will be more likely to experience identity diffusion and BPO, as Cushman implies.  Method  Participants Participants were 45 male and 43 female second generation "Westerners" who were 18  fluent in English. Participants were required to have had a previous emotionally significant 19  romantic relationship and be heterosexual. The average age was 23.13 (SD=4.58) and 24.19 (SD=7.90) for male and female participants, respectively. The longest romantic relationship experienced by these participants was 27 months for men and 34 months for women. Half of 20  the men (48.9%) and women (48.8%) were currently in a relationship. A l l participants were undergraduate students at the University of British Columbia. Most participants were  At least one parent must be born in Canada, the U.S., Europe, Australia or New Zealand. These limitations on participants were necessary so the issues at hand can be investigated with a homogenous sample before assessing between-sample variation and cross-cultural variation. It was hypothesized that second generation participants would be socialized in Western culture. Due to the high correlation between self-reported and partner-reported emotional abuse found in study one (r=.65; p<001), the participants in study two are not be couples; self-reported emotional abuse is used. As well, much jealousy research has shown that partner reports of jealousy are often not strongly related to self-reports (see White & Mullen, 1989, p.293). Future research could investigate partner reports. 19  2 0  Society, Love, and Abuse 34  contacted through the psychology undergraduate participant pool; some additional participants completed the questionnaire for $10, or as volunteers.  Materials (see Appendix) A l l of the scales from study 1 are used in study 2 with the addition of: 1. Inclusion of other in the self. The Inclusion of Other in the Self scale (IOS; Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992) is designed to assess closeness based on the theory of self-expansion (Aron & Aron, 1986; Aron, Aron, Tudor & Nelson, 1991). Seven Venn diagrams, ranging from two non-touching circles to two mostly overlapping circles, represent the other and the self. The scale requires minimum time to complete and emphasizes the interconnectedness in the relationship. Aron, Aron and Smollan (1992) report good test-retest reHability and construct vahdity for the scale; as the scale is composed of only one diagram, no coefficient alpha can be computed. Participants completed the scale nine times with different instructions. 'Tlease circle the picture below which best describes your relationship with your intimate partner/ ideal relationship with an mtimate partner/ with your mother (female guardian)/ with your father (male guardian)/ with your best same-sex friend/ with your second best same-sex friend/ with your closest sibling/ with God or another spiritual being/ with your work." 2. Jealousy. The Multidimensional Jealousy Scale (MJS; Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989) will be used to investigate the three types of jealousy: cognitive; behavioural; and emotional. The MJS is composed of 24 self-report items which are rated on a seven-point scale. Items include "I think that X is secretly developing an mtimate relationship with someone of the opposite sex," 'T look through X ' s drawers, handbag, or pockets," and " X is flirting with someone of  Society, Love, and Abuse 35  the opposite sex" for cognitive, behavioural, and emotional jealousy, respectively. The cognitive subscale is prefaced by the instruction "how often do you have the following thoughts about X " and the rating scale ranges from 'never" to "all the time." The behavioural subscale instruction reads "how often do you engage in the following behaviours," and is rated on the same scale as the cognitive items. The emotional subscale begins with "how would you emotionally react to the following situations," and is rated from "very pleased" to "very upset." Cronbach's alpha for the three subscales is .92, .85, and .89 for the cognitive, emotional, and behavioural subscales, respectively. The three subscales are only moderately correlated and principle components analysis reveals three distinct factors. The MJS has also demonstrated and construct validity (Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989).  Procedure A l l of the participants were met and debriefed by the same female experimenter. Participants were led to a private area and the experimenter explained that some of the questions in the package referred to a romantic relationship. If the participants were not currently in an emotionally significant relationship they were instructed to complete romantic relationship-specific questions based on one emotionally significant relationship from their past. Half of the packages were reverse-ordered but no order effects for means were detected.  Society, Love, and Abuse 36  Results  21  Correlations performed to determine the relationship between cognitive, behavioural, and emotional jealousy and the previously-identified abuse-related variables are presented in Table 3. In both sexes cognitive and behavioural jealousy correlated significantly with BPO. 22  In men both cognitive and behavioural jealousy correlated strongly with P M I abuse; in women, only the latter relationship was present. These P M I correlations maintained significance when the jealousy subscale was removed from the P M I score. Emotional jealousy did not correlate significantly with B P O or abuse except for with the primitive defenses subscale, in women only. Anger correlated with behavioural jealousy in both men and women but emotional jealousy also correlated with anger in women. Fearful attachment style correlated with behavioural and cognitive jealousy in men but, in women, fearful attachment style correlated with cognitive and emotional jealousy. Preoccupied attachment style correlated with behavioural and emotional jealousy in women, and secure attachment correlated negatively with all three types of jealousy in women but with only cognitive jealousy in men. Dismissing attachment did not correlate with any of the jealousy types. The only significant E M B U correlation was between maternal rejection and cognitive jealousy in women. Negative attributions, as measured by the R A M , correlated positively with cognitive jealousy in both sexes (see Table 3). Emotional and behavioural jealousy did not correlate significantly with negative attributions in either sex.  A l l results are based on the entire sample: 45 men and 43 women except for a few results where missing data decreased the number of cases to no less than 42 men and 42 women. The pattern of relationships shown in Table 3 holds when Marlowe-Crowne social desirability is partialled out of correlations. 2 2  Society, Love, and Abuse 37  A simultaneous multiple regression analysis was used to investigate which type of jealousy accounted for the most variance in P M I emotional abuse (minus jealousy subscale) in both sexes (in men the P M I correlated with two types of jealousy). The regression analyses are presented in Tables 4.1 and 4.2. In men, cognitive jealousy was the most significant predictor of the variance in abuse scores. In women, jealous behaviour was the best predictor of P M I abuse (minus jealousy subscale). Overall, passionate love did not correlate significantly with any of the jealousy types in either sex. Two subscales did correlate in women: the passionate cognition subscale correlated positively with behavioural jealousy; and the passionate behaviour subscale correlated with cognitive jealousy. These correlations are also presented in Table 3. Correlations between the three types of jealousy and social network closeness are presented in Table 5. Very few of these correlations are significant. In women, closeness to mother and partner correlate negatively with cognitive jealousy. In men, closeness to mother correlates positively with emotional jealousy and closeness to a sibling correlates positively with behavioural jealousy. To test Cushman's theory that borderline symptoms are related to an impoverished social network, correlations between B P O and social network closeness are presented in Table 6. In men closeness to mother, partner, second best friend and work correlated negatively with BPO. In women none of the closeness variables correlated with BPO. A stepwise multiple regression was performed on B P O and its identity difiusion subscale using all IOS closeness ratings (except closeness to ideal partner) as independent variables to determine which relationships are of primary importance. In men, the regression analysis revealed that closeness  Society, Love, and Abuse 38  to wOrk and closeness to partner accounted for 20% of variance in B P O scores (p=.0032). The same regression used to predict identity diffusion showed that closeness to second best friend accounted for 12% of the variance in men's identity diffusion scores (/?=. 0111). None of the closeness variables predicted a significant amount of variance in B P O or identity diffusion scores for the women. Scatterplots of these variables were generated to determine whether a cuivllinear relationship was present between any of the IOS scores and BPO in women. No curvilinear relationships were detected. Between-sex t-tests were performed on means for all major variables. At a Bonferroni level of significance, no sex differences in means were detected. In study one between-sex t-tests were not performed because, as couples, the men and women were not independent. Means for main variables by sex in study two are presented in Table 7. To replicate the finding that abuse rates do not differ in those scoring high or low in passionate love, t-tests were generated for BPO and P M I abuse for median-spht high and low passion scores. In men, those scoring high in passion actually had significantly higher abuse scores than those scoring low in passion (p<.05). BPO scores did not differ in the two groups. In women, abuse scores did not differ between high and low passion groups. However, BPO scores were higher in those in the upper-passion group (p<.0l).  Discussion The predictions for study two investigate two main areas. First, the different aspects of what has often been viewed as a unidirnensional construct, jealousy, is investigated. Results confirm that in both sexes the three types of jealousy relate differently to the abusive  Society, Love, and Abuse 39  personality variables. As expected, emotional jealousy does not show a strong relationship with BPO, emotional abuse or negative attributions in either sex, as emotional jealousy is primarily a response to an actual relationship threat. In women, behavioural jealousy is consistently related to B P O and emotional abuse. In men, both cognitive and behavioural jealousy are related to B P O and emotional abuse. These results are theoretically very important to jealousy research: jealousy scales which include items assessing cognitive, behavioural, and emotional jealousy which are summed for one total jealousy score and then correlated with other measures are likely giving blurred results. While no significant sex differences in means are detected, it appears that cognitive and behavioural jealousy play a large role in men's abusive tendencies, while only behavioural jealousy is central to women's abusiveness. It is true that the jealous cognition subscale of the M D J includes more items which could be more easily related to sexual jealousy than do the other M D J subscales and that men have been shown to be more sensitive to sexual infidelity 23  than women have (e.g., Buss, Larsen, Westen & Semmelroth, 1992; Wiederman & Rice Allgeier, 1993; White & Mullen, 1989, p. 127-8). While differential means are not detected in this sample, it is possible that, in men, beliefs about sexual infidelity are more likely to lead to abusiveness than they would in women. Similarly, the same research which delineates differences in sexual jealousy shows that women are more likely to be jealous about loss of time and attention. It could be argued that the behavioural jealousy subscale of the M D J assesses aspects of jealousy that suggest underlying distrust but not necessarily of a sexual  Items related to sexual jealousy include: 'T suspect that X may be physically intimate with another member of the opposite sex behind my back"; and, 'T am worried that someone of the opposite sex is trying to seduce X . "  Society, Love, and Abuse 40  nature and, therefore, may be more strongly related to women's abusiveness than more 24  explicitly sexual items. Nonetheless, it is surprising that sex differences in means have not been uncovered; perhaps, though, a larger sample size would detect a significant difference. Tfie correlation between love and emotional jealousy and the negative correlation between love and cognitive jealousy which Pfeiffer and Wong (1989) identified is not significant in this sample. Though Pfeiffer and Wong used Rubin's (1970) love scale and the PLS was used in this sample, these scales have been shown to be strongly correlated (Hatfield & Sprecher, 1986). The only MDJ-PLS relationships which are identified are positive relationships between cognitive and behavioural jealousy and the passionate behaviour and passionate cognition subscales, respectively, and these correlations are significant in women only. In women all M D J and PLS subscales are positively correlated, though most of these correlations are not significant. In men no PLS and jealousy correlations approach significance. This result is the opposite of what was found in study one where, in men, passion and jealousy were correlated and, in women, no significant correlation was found between these two. However, study one used a very weak jealousy subscale of only six items. Nevertheless, this anomalous result cannot be explained with only data from studies one and two. Further samples of men and women need to be measured, especially in light of the fact that Pfeiffer and Wong (1989) reported no sex differences in their sample. It is possible that the answer lies in some difference in men and women who are currently coupled and those who are not. However, Pfeiffer and Wong did not find differences in M D J scale scores in those who were  Items which do not clearly apply to supposed sexual infidelity include: "I join in whenever I see X talking to a memeber of the opposite sex"; and, " I question X about his or her telephone calls."  Society, Love, and Abuse 41  reporting on a current or past romantic relationship. While Buss et al. (1992) found that jealousy was more common in men who had experienced a relevant romantic relationship, all participants in study two had been in an emotionally significant romantic relationship prior to participation in the study. As predicted, cognitive jealousy is correlated with negative attributions. However, the same prediction was made for behavioural jealousy, and this relationship is not significant. On further consideration, it is unsurprising that cognitive jealousy would be more strongly related to negative attributions than would behavioural jealousy because attributions are cognitions of a similar nature to those in the cognitive jealousy subscale. Cognition most often would play a role in jealous behaviours: one calls the partner to check on their whereabouts because one likely has made some negative attributions about the honesty of the partner. However, there may be something more related to blaming the partner for wrongdoing in the cognitive jealousy items: one can wonder about the partner's honesty and perform behaviours which concur with such thoughts without blaming the partner; one could self-blame and believe that one was an inadequate partner and so on. The R A M is based on six subscales, four of which assess items of blame, intent, locus internal to partner, and selfish motivation. The behavioural jealousy 25  subscale contains indirect distrust but not necessarily as much overt blame as do the cognitive subscale items (e.g. "I suspect that X is secretly seeing someone of the opposite sex").  These items are: "My partner's behaviour was due to something about Mm/her (e.g., the type of person he. she is, the mood he/she was in);" ' M y partner (did this behaviour) on purpose rather than unintentionally;" "My partner's behaviour was motivated by selfish rather than unselfish concerns;" and, "My partner deserves to be blamed for (this behaviour)."  Society, Love, and Abuse 42  The predicted relationship between emotional and cognitive jealousy and closeness to social network variables is not strong. Closeness to mother and partner do contribute to lower levels of cognitive jealousy in women as predicted but, in men, emotional jealousy is positively correlated to closeness to mother. In men, behavioural jealousy correlates positively with closeness to a sibling. It would appear from this weak and scattered picture that jealousy is not inversely related to a social network as was hypothesized, at least in men. The correlation between anger and behavioural jealousy was expected. However, anger did not correlate significantly with cognitive jealousy as was predicted. It is possible that behavioural jealousy shares more characterological variance with anger than does cognitive jealousy: people who are rash and check on their partner's activities may also be quick to anger. However, it seems probable that people who have thoughts that their partner might be secretly involved with someone else would be angry too. Possibly a larger sample would lead to a significant anger-cognitive jealousy relationship. The correlation between emotional jealousy and anger in women is not entirely surprising, albeit not predicted. Though it would be normal for most people to score moderately on the emotional jealousy subscale, it is likely that those who are most upset by an actual infidelity of sorts on the part of their partner would be those who are more easily angered. Nonetheless, this relationship was not significant in men and, therefore, deserves attention in future jealousy studies. The only prediction which was made regarding attachment style and jealousy was that fearful attachment style would correlate with cognitive and behavioural jealousy but not with emotional jealousy. In men, this prediction was correct but, in women, fearful attachment style correlated strongly with emotional jealousy and weakly with behavioural jealousy. This strong  Society, Love, and Abuse 43  correlation between emotional jealousy and fearful attachment is interesting because it suggests that though people who are fearfully attached tend to be more fearful about their relationship stability (in terms of possibly unwarranted cognitive and behavioural jealousy), women with this attachment style do react strongly to what most people might view as an actual relationship threat, suggesting more of a grasp on reality than was expected by the predictions. Alternatively, women with fearful attachment style may be more likely to experience partner infidelity, leading to all three types ofjealousy. However, the basis of attachment research is that attachment style affects interpretation of attachment figure behaviour (therefore the use of the identical "strange situation"), likely leading those with fearful attachment styles to wrongly define the actions of others as abandoning. Nevertheless, the fact that a significant relationship was found between jealousy and fearful attachment contradicts Clanton and Kosins' (1991) claim that jealousy is not necessarily related to disrupted attachment history. The second main area of predictions he in assessing the relationship between BPO and social network variables to test the idea that B P O is related to a depleted social network. In men, B P O is inversely related to closeness to mother, partner, work and second best friend. In terms of the men in this study, it would appear that Cushman is right: B P O and identity diffusion are related to a weaker social and work sphere. Interestingly, second-best friend is most prominent in predicting variance in identity diffusion scores. Possibly, the second best friend is the closest measure of a broad friendship network: if one is very close to one's second-best friend one is at least as close to the best friend and one may also have other close friends as well.  Society, Love, and Abuse 44 Conversely, B P O variance is not predicted by any 10S variable in women. It is possible that the BPO-IOS relationship is weaker but not absent in women and a larger sample would be required for this relationship to reach significance. Others might argue that for women a social network has been more of a constant throughout history. While men may need more of a social network now because work is less fulfilling and other social structures such as community clubs and strong churches have weakened, women may still have a strong enough social structure to support them. Women are also more likely to seek social support (Rosario & Shinn, 1988) than are men. Another potential explanation is that other sociocultural factors play more of a role in B P O and identity diffusion in women because a basic social structure of at least a few friends or relatives still exists. For instance, women may be exposed to more contradictory messages by society, one potential cause cited by Millon (1987) for the increase in BPD. Women in our culture are faced with potentially contradictory roles and role models, perhaps, more often than men are. The roles of mother and career woman are commonly viewed as more difficult to integrate than that of father and career man. The sex object or decorative role of women presented by the media contradicts the career image of the modern woman or the image of equality in intellect; such a contradiction would not have existed in our culture's past when being a sex object itself constituted an acceptable "career" for a woman. Society also presents women with magazine images of "ideal" women who are extremely, and generally unattainably, thin and otherwise airbrushed to perfection but simultaneously gives women recipes for "decadent" chocolate cookies and tells them to 'learn to love the way they look." These contradictory messages are a worthwhile area of future study.  Society, Love, and Abuse 45  The replication of the study one finding that passion and abusiveness can definitely cooccur lends support to the Cushman argument that people in our culture have internalized contradictory messages. As has been suggested, love and abuse are not necessarily mutually exclusive. This finding is important in light of the view that love is a solution of sorts to a vast number of problems. General Conclusions Limitations and directions for future study Some limitations should be noted. First, and most obviously, power would be increased if sample sizes were larger. However, the fact that several significant relationships were identified despite relatively small samples is impressive. Nonetheless, future research should include larger samples, especially of women, to determine whether the sex differences found in correlations are due to a difference in magnitude of relationship across sexes rather than a qualitatively different relationship between variables in men and women. Second, this research should be replicated in samples of people who are in long-term relationships such as marriages, in groups where there is more variance in passionate love and abuse scores, and in other nonundergraduate populations. It is possible that in clinical populations where B P O scores would be more extreme than in our sample, curvilinear relationships could exist. Therefore, these studies are limited in generalizability at present. Third, the IOS was intended as a measure of one relationship but, in study two, it was used to assess a number of relationships. While it appeared to discriminate between closeness to various people or involvements (as the IOS variables correlated differently with other variables under study), it is unclear why such sex differences were found. Since B P O has been  Society, Love, and Abuse 46 shown to correlate with parental rejection in both sexes, it is strange that closeness to parents , at least, did not inversely relate to BPO in women. Further studies should investigate the IOS in comparison to other measures of social network. The IOS takes little time to complete and allows the respondent to self-define what the overlapping circles mean. While the IOS has been shown to relate strongly to other closeness measures (Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992), perhaps, the self-definitional aspect could cause problems with some participants. For instance, someone who is high in B P O and who experienced a damaging parent-child relationship may interpret the mother-closeness IOS in terms of the impact that parent had on them. As such, they might select a diagram with high overlap because that parent had a lot to do with determining their personality, perhaps in a maladaptive sense, rather than with closeness to the parent. Such theorizing may turn out to be false and, indeed, the IOS is a novel and very useful measure. Practically, however, the sex differences in IOS and BPO variables are entirely unexpected and need to be further investigated. Fourth, and possibly most important, this type of correlational research cannot determine causality. In terms of the relationship found in men between B P O and social network variables (closeness to partner, mother, work, second-best friend), causal direction is of great theoretical importance. Previous research (e.g. Dutton & Ryan, 1992; Dutton, van Ginkel & Starzomski, in press) suggests that BPO develops quite early and much B P D research indicates an early planting of the roots of the disorder in the parent-child relationship (e.g., Millon, 1989). Such research often describes the need to readjust the early parent-child relationship while addressing B P D (e.g., Masterson, 1990). Therefore, it would appear that borderline symptoms occur prior to and most likely help to create poor relationships with  Society, Love, and Abuse 47  partners, friends and work. However, the creation of borderline symptoms seems to require a parent who instills anxiety in the child. The sociohistorical evidence presented earlier in this paper suggests that society has a role in creating poor parenting in individuals. The family unit is nested within a greater context and even under the best of circumstances requires social support. As Gadlin, Millon, and others point out, this societal social support is often lacking in our culture. The serious results of borderline symptoms (for instance in Dutton and colleagues' research on abusiveness; see, e.g., Dutton, 1995) have been shown. If borderline symptoms are increasing in our society, we can only assume that mtimate abusiveness is as well, and affecting more couples. A novel way of investigating the issue of directionality might be to use a similar structure to that used by Reissman, Aron and Bergen (1993). These researchers actually manipulated time spent with partner to determine whether marital satisfaction increased desire to spend time together or if time spent together increased satisfaction. In the same way, time spent in other activities or with other people could be manipulated to determine if identity diffusion could be lessened by interest in activities and/or a range of people. Although this would not address the serious problems in the early parent-child relationship of those with severe borderline symptoms, it would help to determine when identity diffusion in adulthood decreases the likelihood of a close social network or if a social network can decrease identity diffusion in males, at least.  Society, Love, and Abuse 48  Final thoughts There are several areas in which sociocultural theory begs the application of experimental effort. As states Millon (1989): The fabric of traditional and organized societies not only comprises standards designed to indoctrinate and inculcate the young, but it also provides "insurance," if you will, backups to compensate and repair system defects and failures. Extended families, church leaders, schoolteachers, and neighbors provide nurturance and role models by which children experiencing troubling parental relationships can find a means of support and affection, enabling them to be receptive to society's established body of norms and values.  Clearly, we need more insurance. As extended families, church leaders and close neighbourhoods are dimMshing, the school system must be supported as a system of socialization and support for young people outside the home. Increasing the ratio between student and teacher, especially in classes of young children, only decreases the interaction between children and their teacher, a role model who could possibly meet some attachment needs and, at least, give guidance and encouragement to the child. In the long run, cutting school funding will likely result in other social costs such as increased need for counseling services, inabihty to manage in the work force, family dissolution and, in extreme cases, future child negligence, violence and potentially increased rates of mental illness. Strong neighbourhood associations and groups such as Big Brothers and Volunteer Grandparents are also an applied way of filling in part of a lacking social net. However, our data do suggest that for women B P O may not be related to social network variables. As such, future research on potential social causes for B P O in women is necessary. This research could start by investigating the extent to which internalization of  Society, Love, and Abuse 49 contradictory roles and beliefs is related to B P O in women. It could be that the contradictions inherent in our society need to be addressed in hopes of decreasing B P O in young women. Central to the long-term goals of this research is to show that social and other psychologists need to integrate the research of historians and sociologists into their theories of human interaction. In truth, social psychologists have committed an attribution error of sorts. While individuals wrongly attribute the actions of others to an internal source, social psychologists too often focus on a minuscule relationship between two or three people when often the real cause of the behaviour in question is rooted in a much larger external environment. If maladaptive and problematic behaviours, thoughts, and feelings are created by the encompassing society, no amount of research or exploration of the parent-child relationship, for instance, will do much to ameliorate that relationship until cultural forces are recognized.  Society, Love, and Abuse 50  References  Albee, G. (1982). Preventing psychopathology and promoting human potential. American Psychologist, 37, 1043-1050. Albee, G. (1986). Toward a just society: Lessons from observations on the primary prevention of psychopathology. American Psychologist, 41, 891-898. Aron, A., & Aron, E.N. (1986). Love and the expansion of self: Understanding attraction and satisfaction. Washington: Hemisphere! Aron, A., Aron, E.N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63 (4), 596-612. Aron, A., Aron, E.N., Tudor, M . , & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as mcluding the other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(2), 241-253. Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: A n attachment perspective. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 147-178. Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L . M . (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226-244. Baumeister, R. (1987). How the self became a problem: A psychological review of historical research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 163-176. Becker, E. (1973). The Denial of Death. New York: Free Press. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation. New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss. New York: Basic Books. Branden, N . (1988) A vision of romantic love. In R. J. Sternberg & M . L . Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love (pp.218-231). New York: Vail-Ballou Press. Brewin, C.R., Andrews, B., & Gotlib, I.H. (1993). Psychopathology and early experience: A reappraisal of retrospective reports. Psychological Bulletin, 113(1), 82-98. Bringle, R.G. (1991). Psychosocial aspects of jealousy: A transactional model. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and envy (pp. 103-131). New York: Guilford.  Society, Love, and Abuse 51  Bringle, R.G., & Evenbeck, S. (1979). The study of jealousy as a dispositional characteristic. In M . Cook and G. Wilson (Eds.), Love and attraction. New York: Pergamon. Bryson, J.B. (1991). Modes of response to jealousy-evoking situations. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and envy (pp. 178-207). New York: Guilford. Buss, D . M . , Larsen, R.J., Westen, D., & Semmehoth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3(4), 251-255. Buunk, B.P., (1991). Jealousy in close relationships: A n exchange-theoretical perspective. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and envy (pp. 148-177). New York: Guilford. Campbell, J.D., & Lavallee, L.F. (1993). Who am I: The role of self-concept confusion in understanding the behaviour of people with low self-esteem. In R.F. Baumeister (Ed.), Self-esteem: The puzzle of low self-regard (pp.3-20). New York: Plenum. Clanton, G., & Kosins, D.J. (1991). Developmental correlates of jealousy. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and envy (pp. 132-147). New York: Guilford. Collins, N . L . , & Read, S.J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(4), 644-663. Crowne, D.P., & Marlowe, D.A. (1960). A new scale of social desirabihty independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354. Csikszentmihalyi, M . , (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper/Collins. Cushman, P. (1990). Why the self is empty: Toward a historically situated psychology. American Psychologist, 45, 599-611. de Moja, C.A. (1986). Anxiety, self-confidence, jealousy, and romantic attitudes toward love in Italian undergraduates. Psychological Reports, 58, 138. Dion, K . K . & Dion, K . L . (1993). Individuahstic and collectivistic perspectives on gender and the cultural context of love and intimacy. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 53-69. Dion, K . L . & Dion, K . K . (1988). Romantic love: mdividual and cultural perspectives. In R. J. Sternberg & M . L . Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love (pp.264-289). New York: Vail-Ballou Press.  Society, Love, and Abuse 52  Dutton, D.G. (1994). Behavioral and affective correlates of Borderline Personality Organization in wife assaulters. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 17(3), 265-277. Dutton, D.G. (1995). The domestic assault of women: Psychological and criminal justice perspectives. Vancouver, Canada: University of British Columbia Press. Dutton, D.G., & Ryan, L . (1992). Antecedents of borderline personality in wife assaulters. Unpublished manuscript, University of British Columbia. Dutton, D.G., & Starzomski, A . (1993). Perpetrator characteristics associated with women's reports of psychological and physical abuse. Violence and Victims, 8(4), 326-335. Dutton, D.G., van Ginkel, C.E., & Starzomski, A . (in press). The role of shame and guilt in the intergenerational transmission of abusiveness. Violence and Victims. Feeney, J.A., Noller, P., & Hanrahan, M . (1994). Assessing adult attachment. In M . B . Sperling & W.H. Berman (Eds.), Attachment in adults: Clinical and developmental perspectives (pp. 128-152). New York: Gnulford. Fincham, F.D., & Bradbury, T.N. (1992). Assessing attributions in marriage: The Relationship Attribution Measure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(3), 457-468. Fletcher, G.J.O., Fincham, F.D., Cramer, L., & Heron, N . (1987). The role of attributions in the development of dating relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 481-489. Gadlin, H . (1977). Private lives and public order: A critical view of the history of intimate relations in the United States. In G. Levinger & H . Raush (Eds.), Close relationships: Perspectives on the meaning of intimacy (pp33-72). Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts Press. Gerslma, C , Emmelkamp, P.M.G., & Arrindell, W.A. (1990). Anxiety, depression and perception of early parenting: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 10, 251277. Griffin, D., & Bartholomew, K. (1994a). The metaphysics of measurement: The case of adult attachment. In K . Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships Vol. 5: Attachment processes in adulthood (pp. 17-52). London, England: Jessica Kingsley. * Griffin, D., & Bartholomew, K . (1994b). Models of the self and other: Fundamental dimensions underlying measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), 430-445.  Society, Love, and Abuse 53  Goodwin, K , & Soon, A.P.Y. (1994). Self-monitoring and relationship adjustment: A crosscultural analysis. Journal of Social Psychology, 134(1), 35-39. Gunderson, J.G. (1984). Borderline personality disorder. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press. Hansen, G.L. (1983). Marital satisfaction and jealousy among men. Psychological Reports, 52(2), 363-366. Hansen, G.L. (1991). Jealousy: Its conceptualization, measurement, and integration with family stress theory. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and envy (pp.211230). New York: Guilford. Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R.L. (1987). Passionate love: New directions in research. In W.H. Jones & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships, 1 (pp. 109-139). Greenwich, CO: JAI. Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R.L. (1993). Historical and cross-cultural perspectives on passionate love and sexual desire. Annual Review of Sex Research, 4, 67-97. Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1986). Measuring passionate love in intimate relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 9, 383-410. Hazan, C , & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524. Hazan, C , & Shaver, P. (1990). Love and work: A n attachment-theoretical perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(2), 270-280. Hendrick, C , & Hendrick, S. (1986). A theory and method of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(2), 392-402. Hendrick, C , & Hendrick, S.S. (1989). Research on love: Does it measure up? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(5), 784-794. Hendrick, S.S., & Hendrick, C. (1992). Romantic love. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hupka, R.B. (1991). The motive for the arousal of romantic jealousy: Its cultural origin. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and envy (pp.252-270). New York: Guilford. Kasian, M . , & Painter, S. (1992). Frequency and severity of psychological abuse in a dating population. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7(3), 350-364.  Society, Love, and Abuse 54  Kkkpatrick, L . A . , & Shaver, P. (1992). A n attachment theoretical approach to romantic love and religious belief. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 266-275. Lasch, C. (1978). The culture of narcissism. New York: Norton. Lester, D., Deluca, G., Hellinghausen, W., & Scribner, D. (1985). Jealousy and irrationality in love. Psychological Reports, 56, 210. Markus, H.R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253. Marvin, R.S., & Stewart, R.B. (1990). A family systems framework for the study of attachment. In M.T. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & E . M . Cunmiings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years (pp.51-86). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Masterson, J.F. (1990). Psychotherapy of borderline and narcissistic disorders: EstabUshing a therapeutic alliance. Journal of Personality Disorders, 4(2), 182-191. Mathes, E.W., & Severa, N . (1981). Jealousy, romantic love, and liking; Theoretical considerations and preliminary scale development. Psychological Reports, 49, 23-31. Mcintosh, E.G., & Tate, D.T., (1990). Correlates of jealous behaviors. Psychological Reports, 66, 601-602. (opt. page 23) Meissner, W.W. (1987). Life andfaith. Washington: Georgetown University Press. Mikulincer, M . , Bizman, A., & Aizenberg, R. (1989). A n attribution analysis of socialcomparison jealousy. Motivation and Emotion, 13(4), 235-258. Millon, (1987). On the genesis and prevalence of the borderline personality disorder: A social learning thesis. Journal of Personality Disorders, 1(4), 354-372. Oldham, J., Clarkin, J., Appelbaum, A., Carr, A., Kernberg, P., Lotterman, A., & Haas, G., (1985). A self-report instrument for Borderline Personality Organization. In T. H . McGlashan (Ed.), The Borderline: Current empirical research. The progress in psychiatry series (pp. 1-18). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press. Parks, M.R., & Eggert, L . L . (1991). The role of social context in the dynamics of personal relationships. In W.H. Jones & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships, 2 (pp. 1-34). London: Jessica Kingsley.  Society, Love, and Abuse 55  Paulhus, D. L . (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J.P. Robinson & L.S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures ofpersonality and social psychological attitudes. San Diego: Academia Press. Peele, S. (1988). Fools for love: The romantic ideal, psychological theory, and addictive love. In R.J. Sternberg & M . L . Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love (pp. 159-188). New York: Vail-Ballou Press. Perris, C , Jacobsson, L., Lindstrom, H . , von Knorring, L., & Perris, H . (1980). Development of a new inventory for assessing memories of parental rearing behaviour. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 61, 265-27 4. r  Pfeiffer, S.M., & Wong, P.T.P. (1989). Multidimensional jealousy. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 181-196. Philbrick, J.L., & Opolot, J.A. (1980). Love style: Comparison of African and American attitudes. Psychological Reports, 46, 286. Pines, A., & Aronson, E. (1983). Antecedents, correlates, and consequences of sexual jealousy. Journal of Personality, 51(1), 108-134. Radecki-Bush, C , Farrell, A.D., &Bush, J.P. (1993). Predicting jealous responses: The influence of adult attachment and depression on threat appraisal. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 569-588. Reissman, C , Aron, A., & Bergen, M.R. (1993). Shared activities and marital satisfaction: Causal direction and self-expansion versus boredom. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 243-254. (for conclusion?) Riesman, D., Glazer, N . , & Denny, R. (1953). The lonely crowd: A study of the changing American character. Garden City, N Y : Doubleday. Rosario, M . , & Shinn, M . (1988). Gender differences in coping and social supports: Testing the socialization and role constraint theories. Journal of Community Psychology, 16(1), 55-69. Rosenblatt, P.C. (1967). Marital residence and the functions of romantic love. Ethnology, 6, 471-480. Ross, M.W., Campbell, R.L., & Clayter, J R . (1982). New inventory of measurement of parental rearing patterns: An English form of the E M B U . Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 66, 499-507.  Society, Love, and Abuse 56  Rothbard, J.C., & Shaver, P. (1994). Continuity of attachment across the lifespan. In M . B . Sperling & W.H. Berman (Eds.), Attachment in adults: Clinical and developmental perspectives (pp.31-71). New York: Guilford. Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(2), 265-273. Salovey, P., & Rothman, A.J. (1991). Envy and jealousy: Self and society. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and envy (pp.271-286). New York: Guilford. Sampson, E.E. (1977). Psychology and the American ideal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 767-782. Sampson, E.E. (1985). The decentralization of identity: Towards a revised concept of personal and social order. American Psychologist, 40, 15-22. Sarnoff, I., & Sarnoff, S. (1989). Love-centered marriage in a self-centered world. New York: Hemisphere. Shaver, P., & Hazan, C. (1988). A biased overview of the study of love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 473-501. Shaver, P., & Rubenstein, C. (1980). Childhood attachment experience and adult loneliness. In L Wheeler (Ed.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 1 (pp.42-73). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Siegel, J.M. (1986). The multidimensional anger inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(1), 191-200. Simmons, C.H., Von Koike, A., & Shimizu, H. (1986). Attitudes toward romantic love among American, German and Japanese students. Journal of Social Psychology, 126(3), 327336. Smith, P.B., & Bond, M . H . (1993). Social psychology across cultures: Analysis and perspectives. Cambridge, Great Britain: University Press. Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., & Pyszczynski, T. (1991). Terror management theory or selfesteem. In C.R. Snyder & D.R. Forsyth (Eds.), Handbook of social and clinical psychology: The health perspective (pp.21-40). Elmsford, N Y : Pergamon. Starzomski, A.J., & Dutton, D.G. (1994). Attachment style, anger and attribution in the intimate context. Unpublished manuscript, University of British Columbia.  Society, Love, and Abuse 57  Straus, M . A . (1979). Measuring family conflict and violence: The conflict tactics scale. Journal ofMarriage and the Family, 41, 75-88. Straus, M . A . , Gelles, R.J., & Stainmetz, S. (1980). Behind closed doors: Violence in the American family. Garden city, N Y : Anchor Press/Doubleday. Taylor, C. (1991). The malaise of modernity. Concord, Canada: House of Anansi Press. Thornton, A. (1985). Reciprocal influences of family and religion in a changing world. Journal of Marriage and the Family, May, 381-394. Tolman, R . M . , (1989). The development of a measure of psychological maltreatment of women by their male partners. Violence and Victims, 4(3), 159-177. van Uzendoorn, M . H . (1990). Developments in cross-cultural research on attachment: some methodological notes. Human Development, 33, 3-9. van Sommers, P. (1988). Jealousy: What is it and who feels it? London: Penguin. Weiss, R.S. (1987). Reflections of the present state of loneliness research. In M . Hojat & R. Crandall (Eds.), Loneliness: Theory, research, and applications (pp.1-16). San Rafael, CA: Select Press. White, G.L., & Mullen, P.E. (1989). Jealousy: Theory, research, and clinical strategies. New York: Guilford Press. Wiederman, M.W., & Rice Allgeier, E. (1993). Gender differences in sexual jealousy: Adaptationist or social learning explanation? Ethology and Sociobiology, 14, 115-140. Williams, W . M . , & Barnes, M . L . (1988). Love within life. In R J . Sternberg & M L . Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love (pp.311-329). New York: Vail-Ballou Press.  8S  asnqy pire 'aAoq 'Ajaioos  •• o « 2 B  O  O N  o  e  £  8  0 0  £» 2  ©  o  to  £  00  o  te  3 » «a  to  to to  o  to  o  o  *** *  *  O N  * »  •  *  A  *  < o  «• - * [I S* £ 2 » B  Q,  O 00  o  to  o  00  to -J  to  o  N O  Vi  c "2.  I' era  o  o  -p.  to  • •  ©  O N  to O N  to *  *  to  u>  H -  H -  *  to 00  o  N> N O  00  o  to  *  O N  * * ** *  * »  »  * to  N O  to ^1  to oo  o  o  o  to  00  o  ^1 *  to *  N O  2. LA  *  **  ** *  *  *  *  -p. 00  **  •  O N  O to  (ft a  o  to -J  o  N O  to to  ** *  O to  »  o  L/<  6S  to  00  to #  to  o  to  o to  o  •  o  o  o  to  *  to  to *  N O  O N  O N  to oo  to O N  N O  o o  to  *  * o  O -J  to  to  to -J  to O N  o  LA  -J *  o 00  to O N  < 3.  I SB S  o  00 *  -J •  o  00  B (6  te  to  o  *  N O  e a  ><  00  00  o  e  t/5  LA  O N  *  a  O  o  O N  to  *  O N  N O *  to  •***  - J  O N  e  00  * *  N O  1—  W  LK  O N  O N  A  (ft •*  ©  o  to  o e B B 2. * o BT * B  O 00  H or  —  to  2:1  o  LA  *  „  **  y>  ON  *  *  oo  S> o  N O  -0  O  a CO  #  B  O  £. f £ S §• P §. o J sr S o 3 2 5  i *  00  O  H-  to  1  ABUSE N> o  oo o  o  oo o  o  o o  o  O  ^0  o  I—'•  0 o  r o <!  ro o  O o  r— O < m  o  oo  "0  o  c  *  in  O  o  >k * >k^ O sic '  *  *  5k  *  v  0  *  o  ro o o  f o  o 5* 5K  o  5k  o  0  o  *  2  3  ssnqv pura 'SAOT 'Ajapos  0) m x  en X  ^  OS  09  >  5^>  Society, Love, and Abuse  Table 2: Correlations of Self-reported PMI Jealousy With Other Variables SCALE  PMI Jealousy Self-report Men Women .15 .02 .21 .21  BPO Identity Diffusion Primitive Defenses Reality Testing  > 4 8  Anger (MAI)  .31  Passionate Love Passionate Behaviour Passionate Cognitions Passionate Emotions  .44**  Negative Attributions  .48**  Attachment Styles Secure Dismissing Preoccupied Fearful  .13 .07 .18 .27  -.10 .03 -.02 .00  Paternal Rejection Maternal Rejection  .23 .01  .00 .29  Partner Reports of Emotional Abuse (minus jealousy subscale)  .38*  .39*  * p<.05, two -tailed ** p<.01, two-tailed *** p<.001, two-tailed  53*** 59***  **  .56*** .35* .42**  .25 .07 -.06 -.02 .15 .23  Society, Love, and Abuse 62  Table 3: Correlations of Behavioural, Cognitive, and Emotional Jealousy With Abuse-Related Variables in Men and Women Behavioural Jealousy Men Women  Cognitive Jealousy Women Men  Emotional Jealousy Women Men  BPO Identity Diffusion Primitive Defenses Reality Testing  .40** .35* .33* .33*  .39** .38* .43** .25  .45** .46** .43** .24  .39** .33* .45** .26  .13 .19 .23 -.10  .28 .23 .40** .10  PMI Abuse PMI Abuse Minus Jealousy Subscale  .42** .35*  .53*** .46**  .50***  -.004 -.08  .08 .03  .25 .19  Negative Attributions  .21  .17  .31*  .31*  .07  .27  Anger  .35*  .50***  .19  .25  .13  .36*  Attachment Styles Secure Dismissing Preoccupied Fearful  -.13 .03 -.003 .31*  -.37* -.07 .46** .27  -.43** -.15 -.19 .48***  -.31* .01 .08 .40**  -.09 -.14 .06 .13  -.54*** -.14 .38* .50***  Paternal Rejection Maternal Rejection  -.20 -.07  .04 .27  .08 -.04  -.001 .32*  -.02 -.27  -.25 .13  Passionate Love Behaviour Subscale Cognition Subscale Emotion Subscale  .09 .03 .20 .04  .22 .22 .36* .15  .01 .09 .10 -.04  .23 .32* .21 .19  -.07 -.01 -.07 -.07  .17 .22 .22 .12  SCALE  * p<.05, two -tailed ** p<.01, two-tailed *** p<.001, two-tailed  Society, Love, and Abuse 63  Table 4.1: Variable Intercorrelations of Three Types of Jealousy and Abuse Intercorrelations 1. PMI Abuse (minus jealousy) 2. Jealous Behaviour 3. Jealous Cognitions 4. Jealous Emotions  1  2  -  .462***  .360** .495*** .035  .473*** .257*  3  -.084 .244  .337*  4  .189 .319* .453*** —  * p<.05, one -tailed ** p<.01, one-tailed *** p<.001, one-tailed Note.- Female data above the diagonal defined by dashes, male data below. Table 4.2: Simultaneous Regression Analyses of Three Types of Jealousy and Abuse B  Beta  SEB  1  R  Males Jealous Behaviour Jealous Cognitions Jealous Emotions  .638 1.142 -.483  Multiple R =.539 Adjusted R Square==.236  Jealous Behaviour Jealous Cognitions Jealous Emotions  2.245 -1.001 .947  Multiple R =.524 Adjusted R Square==.217  .534 .388 .412  1.19 2.941 -1.172  ns <.01 ns  F(3,39)=5.33  B  Females  .184 .465 -.169  Beta .478 -.273 .161  SEB .690 .573 .942  F(3,38)=4.784  1 3.252 -1.748 1.005  E <.005 ns ns p<.0l  Society, Love, and Abuse 64  Table 5: Correlations of Three Types of Jealousy and Social Network Variables Emotional Jealousy Men Women  Closeness to...  Behavioural Jealousy Men Women  Cognitive Jealousy Men Women  Mother Father Partner Closest Sibling Best Friend Second Best Friend God Work Ideal Partner  .07 .10 .02 .30* .15 -.04 .05 -.03 .09  .01 -.11 -.08 -.25 -.28 -.24 .11 -.11 -.24  .11 -.09 -.24 .19 -.001 -.28 .18 -.24 .03  -.34* -.14 -.45** .11 .08 .20 .12 .07 .11  .32= .27 .16 .20 .05 .04 .24 .05 .20  Non-romantic Social Network (first eight above, minus partner) Social Network (first eight above)  .13  -.18  -.02  .02  .26  .02  .12  -.19  -.06  -.07  .27  .001  * p<.05, two -tailed ** p<.01, two-tailed *** p<.001, two-tailed  k  .03 -.19 -.13 .17 -.10 -.12 .23 -.05 .11  Society, Love, and Abuse 65  Table 6: Correlations of BPO and Social Network Variables BPO Closeness to... Men Mother Father Partner Closest Sibling Best Friend Second Best Friend God Work Ideal Partner Non-romantic Social Network (first eight above, minus partner) Social Network (first eight above)  -.34* -.07 -.34* -.02 -.14 -.33* -.08 -.34* -.20  Women -.13 -.17 -.07 -.09 -.03 .001 .03 .11 .14  Identity Diffusion Men Women -.24 -.03 -.21 .02 -.18 -.38* .01 -.33* -.07  Reality Testing Primitive Defenses Men Women Men Women  -.11 -.09 -.10 -.12 .01  -.22 -.15 -.24 -.01 -.12  -.18 -.20 -.16 -.08 -.14  -.41** .00 -.42** -.08 -.04  -.07 -.17 .11 -.04 .06 .07  .06 .03 .14 .16  -.28 -.05 -.25 -.14  -.11 .09 .01 .09  -.17 -.18 -.29 -.30*  -.05 .16 .14  -.29  -.06  -.24  -.02  -.23  -.13  -.26  -.02  -.33*  -.07  -.26  -.04  -.26  -.16  -.32*  .005  * p<.05, two -tailed ** p<.01, two-tailed *** p<.001, two-tailed  Society, Love, and Abuse 66  Table 7: Means and Standard Deviations By Sex Variable  MEN Mean SD  WOMEN Mean SD  BPO Identity Diffusion Primitive Defenses Reality Testing  64.27 24.51 21.53 18.22  13.95 5.70 5.79 5.04  67.63 26.60 23.05 17.98  18.04 7.20 7.03 5.57  PMI abuse (selfreport) PMI abuse (selfreport) minus jealousy susbscale  38.96  26.36  51.14  31.76  28.49  21.60  38.93  29.05  Anger  101.84  15.04  108.49  21.63  Attachment Style Fearful Secure Dismissing Preoccupied  14.00 16.66 16.50 11.30  2.89 3.30 3.55 2.95  16.00 15.77 16.51 11.84  3.41 3.04 3.05 3.02  Passionate Love  158.49  26.41  152.95  28.91  Paternal Rejection Maternal Rejection  45.56 37.84  31.87 12.04  53.50 40.26  50.20 15.25  Behavioural Jealousy Cognitive Jealousy Emotional Jealousy  17.09 20.33 39.69  6.30 9.00 7.80  17.35 18.93 42.60  6.11 7.85 4.95  Negative Attributions  75.69  16.15  77.95  15.05  Society, Love, and Abuse  67  Appendix: Measures Passionate Love Scale (PLS) In this part of the questionnaire you will be asked to describe how you feel when you are passionately in love. Some common terms for this feeling are passionate love, infatuation, love sickness, or obsessive love. Please think of the person whom you love most passionately right now. If you are not in love right now, please think of the last person you loved passionately. If you have never been in love, think of the person you came closest to caring for in that way. Keep this person in mind as you complete this section of the questionnaire. Try to tell us how you felt at the time when your feelings were the most intense.  For each of the statements below, please indicate how true it is about your feelings towards the person you love passionately by writing the most appropriate number in the space provided. 1 Not at all true  2  3  4 5 Moderately true  1. Since I've been involved with  6  7 Definitely true  , my emotions have been on a roller  coaster. 2. I would feel despair i f  left me.  3. Sometimes my body trembles with excitement at the sight of 4. I take delight in studying the movements and angles of  . 's body.  5. Sometimes I feel I can't control my thoughts: they are obsessively on 6. I feel happy when I am doing something to make 7. I would rather be with 8. I'd get jealous if I thought 9. No one else could love  than anyone else. were falling in love with someone else. like I do.  10. I yearn to know all about 11. I want  happy.  —physically, emotionally, mentally.  .  Society, Love, and Abuse i  12. I will love  forever.  13. I melt when looking deeply into  's eyes.  14. I have an endless appetite for affection from 15. For me, 16.  .  is the perfect romantic partner.  is the person who can make me feel the happiest.  17. I sense my body responding when 18. I feel tender toward 19.  touches me.  .  always seems to be on my mind.  20. If I were separated from  for a long time, I would feel intensely lonely.  21. I sometimes find it difficult to concentrate on work because thoughts of occupy my mind. 22. I want  to know me~my thoughts, my fears, and my hopes.  23. Knowing that  cares about me makes me feel complete.  24. I eagerly look for signs indicating 25. If  's desire for me.  were going through a difficult time, I would put away my own  concerns to help Mm/her out. 26.  can make me feel effervescent and bubbly.  27. In the presence of 28. A n existence without  , I yearn to touch and be touched. would be dark and dismal.  29. I possess a powerful attraction for  .  30.1 get extremely depressed when things don't go right in my relationship with  Society, Love, and Abuse  69  Relationship Styles Questionnaire (RSQ) Please read each of the following statements and rate the extent to which it describes your feelings about romantic relationships by circling the appropriate number. Think about all of your romantic relationships, past and present, and respond in terms of how you generally feel in these relationships. Not at all like me 1 2  Somewhat like me 3  4  Verv much like me 5  1.  I find it difficult to depend on other people.  1  2  3  4  5  2.  It is very important to me to feel independent.  1  2  3  4  5  3.  I find it easy to get emotionally close to others.  1  2  3  4  5  4.  I want to merge completely with another person.  1  2  3  4  5  5.  I worry that I will be hurt if I allow myself to become1 too close to others.  2  3  4  5  6.  I am comfortable without close emotional relationships.  1  2  3  4  5  7.  I am not sure that I can always depend on others to 1 be there when I need them.  2  3  4  5  8.  I want to be completely emotionally intimate with others.  1  2  3  4  5  9.  I worry about being alone.  1  2  3  4  5  10.  I am comfortable depending on other people.  1  2  3  4  5  11.  I often worry that romantic partners don't really love me.  1  2  3  4  5  12.  I find it difficult to trust others completely.  1  2  3  4  5  13.  I worry about others getting too close to me.  1  2  3  4  5  14.  I want emotionally close relationships.  1  2  3  4  5  15.  I am comfortable having other people depend on me.  1  2  3  4  5  16.  I worry that others don't value me as much as I value them.  1  2  3  4  5  17.  People are never there when you need them.  1  2  3  4  5  Society, Love, and Abuse  Not at all like me 1 2  Somewhat like me 3  4  70  Very much like me 5  18.  My desire to merge completely sometimes scares people away.  1  2  3  4  5  19.  It is very important to me to feel self-sufficient.  1  2  3  4  5  20.  I am nervous when anyone gets too close to me.  1  2  3  4  5  21.  I often worry that romantic partners won't want to stay with me.  1  2  3  4  5  22.  I prefer not to have other people depend on me.  1  2  3  4  5  23.  I worry about being abandoned.  1  2  3  4  5  24.  I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others.  1  2  3  4  5  25.  I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like.  1  2  3  4  5  26.  I prefer not to depend on others.  1  2  3  4  5  27.  I know that others will be there when I need them.  1  2  3  4  5  28.  I worry about having others not accept me.  1  2  3  4  5  29.  Romantic partners often want me to be closer than I feel comfortable being.  1  2  3  4  5  30.  I find it relatively easy to get close to others.  1  2  3  4  5  Society, Love, and Abuse  Borderline Personality Organization (BPO) Self-Report For each of the statements below, please indicate how true it is about you by circling the most appropriate number beside each statement.  1 never true  2  3  seldom true  sometimes true  4 often true  5  always true  1.  I feel like a fake or an imposter, that others see me as quite different at times.  1 2 3 4 5  2.  I feel almost as if I'm someone else like a friend or relative or even someone I don't know.  1 2 3 4 5  3.  It is hard for me to trust people because they so often turn against me or betray me.  1 2 3 4 5  4.  People tend to respond to me by either overwhelming me with love or abandoning me.  1 2 3 4 5  5.  I see myself in totally different ways at different times.  1 2 3 4 5  6.  I act in ways that strike others as unpredictable and erratic.  1 2 3 4 5  7.  I find I do things which get other people upset and I don't know why such things upset them.  1 2 3 4 5  8.  Uncontrollable events are the cause of my difficulties.  1 2 3 4 5  9.  I hear things that other people claim are not really there.  1 2 3 4 5  10.  I feel empty inside.  1 2 3 4 5  11.  I tend to feel things in a somewhat extreme way, experiencing either great joy or intense despair.  1 2 3 4 5  12.  It is hard for me to be sure about what others think of me, even people who have known me very well.  1 2 3 4 5  13.  I'm afraid of losing myself when I get sexually involved.  1 2 3 4 5  14.  I feel that certain episodes in my life do not count and are better erased from my mind.  1 2 3 4 5  71  Society, Love, and Abuse  15.  I find it hard to describe myself.  1 2 3 4 5  16.  I've had relationships in which I couldn't feel whether I or the other person was thinking or feeling something.  1 2 3 4 5  17.  I don't feel like myself unless exciting things are going on around me.  1 2 3 4 5  18.  I feel people don't give me the respect I deserve unless I put pressure on them.  1 2 3 4 5  19.  People see me as being rude or inconsiderate and I don't know why.  1 2 3 4 5  20.  I can't tell whether certain physical sensations I'm having are real, or whether I am imagining them.  1 2 3 4 5  21.  Some of my friends would be surprised if they knew how differently I behave in different situations.  1 2 3 4 5  22.  I find myself doing things which feel okay while I am doing them but which I later find hard to believe I did.  1 2 3 4 5  23.  I believe that things will happen simply by thinking about them.  1 2 3 4 5  24.  When I want something from someone else, I can't ask for it directly.  1 2 3 4 5  25.  I feel I'm a different person at home as compared to how I am at work or at school.  1 2 3 4 5  26.  I am not sure whether a voice I have heard, or something that I have seen, is my imagination or not.  1 2 3 4 5  27.  I have heard or seen things when there is no apparent reason for it.  1 2 3 4 5  28.  I feel I don't get what I want.  1 2 3 4 5  29.  I need to admire people in order to feel secure.  1 2 3 4 5  30.  Somehow, I never know quite how to conduct myself with people.  1 2 3 4 5  72  Society, Love, and Abuse  73  RELATIONSHIP ATTRIBUTION MEASURE (RAM) This questionnaire describes several things that your partner might do. Imagine your partner performing each behaviour and then read the statements that follow it. Please circle the number that indicates how much you agree or disagree with each statement, using the rating scale below: 1 Disagree Strongly  2 Disagree  3 Disagree Somewhat  4 Agree Somewhat  5 Agree  6 Agree Strongly  Your partner criticizes something you say: 1.  123456  My partner's behaviour was due to something about him/her (e.g., the type of person he/she is, the mood he/she was in).  2.  1 2 3 4 5 6  The reason my partner criticized me is not likely to change.  3.  1 2 3 4 5 6  The reason my partner criticized me is something affects other areas of our marriage.  that 4.  1 2 3 4 5 6  My partner criticized me on purpose rather than unintentionally.  5.  1 2 3 4 5 6  My partner's behaviour was motivated by selfish rather than */A7selfish concerns.  6.  1 2 3 4 5 6  My partner deserves to be blamed for criticizing me.  Your partner begins to spend less time with you: 7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 My partner's behaviour was due to something about him/her (e.g., the type of person he/she is, the mood he/she was in). 8.  1 2 3 4 5 6  The reason my partner is spending less time with me is not likely to change.  9.  1 2 3 4 5 6  The reason my partner is spending less time with me is something that affects other areas of our marriage.  10.  123456  My partner spends less time with me on purpose rather than unintentionally.  11.  123456  My partner's behaviour was motivated by selfish rather than *//7selfish concerns.  Society, Love, and Abuse  12.  123456  74  My partner deserves to be blamed for spending less time with me.  Your partner does not pay attention to what you are saying: 13.  123456  My partner's behaviour was due to something about him/her (e.g., the type of person he/she is, the mood he/she was in).  14.  1234 56  The reason my partner was not paying attention to what I was saying is nor likely to change.  15.  123456  The reason my partner didn't pay attention to what I was saying is something that affects other areas of our marriage.  16.  123456  My partner didn't pay attention to what I was saying on purpose rather than unintentionally.  17.  123456  My partner's behaviour was motivated by selfish rather than t/A7selfish concerns.  18.  123456  My partner deserves to be blamed for not paying attention to what I was saying.  Your partner is cool and distant: 19.  123456  My partner's behaviour was due to something about him/her (e.g., the type of person he/she is, the mood he/she was in).  20.  1234 56  The reason my partner was cool and distant is not likely to change.  21.  123456  The reason my partner was cool and distant is something that affects other areas of our marriage.  22.  123456  My partner was cool and distant on purpose rather than unintentionally.  23.  123456  My partner's behaviour was motivated by selfish rather than t//jseifish concerns.  24.  1 234 5 6  My partner deserves to be blamed for being cool and distant.  Society, Love, and Abuse  75  Multidimensional Anger Inventory (MAI) Everybody gets angry from time to time. A number of statements that people have used to describe the times that they get angry are included below. Read each statement and circle the number to the right of the statement that best describes how it applies to you, from 1 (completely undescriptive of you) to 5 (completely descriptive of you). There are no right or wrong answers. 4 mostly descriptive of you  5 completely descriptive of you  1.  I tend to get angry more frequently than most people.  1 2 3 4 5  2.  Other people seem to get angrier than I do in similar circumstances.  1 2 3 4 5  3.  I harbour grudges that I don't tell anyone about.  1 2 3 4 5  4.  I try to get even when I'm angry with someone.  1 2 3 4 5  5.  I am secretly quite critical of others.  1 2 3 4 5  6.  It is easy to make me angry.  1 2 3 4 5  7.  When I am angry with someone, I let that person know.  1 2 3 4 5  8.  I have met many people who are supposed to be experts who are no better than I.  1 2 3 4 5  9.  Something makes me angry almost every day.  1 2 3 4 5  10.  I often feel angrier than I think I should.  1 2 3 4 5  11.  I feel guilty about expressing my anger.  1 2 3 4 5  12.  When I am angry with someone, I take it out on whoever is around.  1 2 3 4 5  13.  Some of my friends have habits that annoy and bother me very much.  1 2 3 4 5  14.  I am surprised at how often I feel angry.  1 2 3 4 5  1 completely undescriptive of you  2 mostly undescriptive of you  3 partly descriptive and partly undescriptive  Society, Love, and Abuse  76  4 mostly descriptive of you  5 completely descriptive of you  15.  Once I let people know that I am angry, I can put it out of my mind.  1 2 3 4 5  16.  People talk about me behind my back.  1 2 3 4 5  17.  At times, I feel angry for no specific reason.  1 2 3 4 5  18.  I can make myself angry about something in the past just by thinking about it.  1 2 3 4 5  19.  Even after I have expressed my anger, I have trouble forgetting about it.  1 2 3 4 5  20.  When I hide my anger from others, I think about it for a long time.  1 2 3 4 5  21.  People can bother me just by being around.  1 2 3 4 5  22.  When I get angry, I stay angry for hours.  1 2 3 4 5  23.  When I hide my anger from others, I forget about it pretty quickly.  1 2 3 4 5  24.  I try to talk over problems with people without letting them know I'm angry.  1 2 3 4 5  25.  When I get angry, I calm down faster than most people.  1 2 3 4 5  26.  I get so angry, I feel that I might lose control.  1 2 3 4 5  27.  If I let people see the way I feel, I'd be considered a hard person to get along with.  28.  I am on my guard with people who are friendlier than I expected.  1 2 3 4 5  29.  It's difficult for me to let people know I'm angry.  1 2 3 4 5  1 completely undescriptive of you  2 mostly undescriptive of you  3 partly descriptive and partly undescriptive  1 2 3 4 5  Society, Love, and Abuse  1 completely undescriptive of you  30.  2 mostly undescriptive of you  3 partly descriptive and partly undescriptive  4 mostly descriptive of you  77  5 completely descriptive of you  I get angry when: a  someone lets me down  1 2 3 4 5  b  people are unfair  1 2 3 4 5  c  something blocks my plans  1 2 3 4 5  d  I am delayed  1 2 3 4 5  e  someone embarrasses me  1 2 3 4 5  f  I have to take orders from someone less capable than I  1 2 3 4 5  g  I have to work with incompetent people  1 2 3 4 5  h  I do something stupid  1 2 3 4 5  i  I am not given credit for something I have done  1 2 3 4 5  Society, Love, and Abuse  78  EMBU Did your parents remain together during your childhood? Yes If "no," please indicate your age at the time of separation: did you then live with? Mother Father Other (specify)  No  .  years old. Who  Beside each statement, please write in the number of the response listed below (1 - 4) that best describes how often the experience happened to you with your mother (or female guardian) and father (or male guardian) when you were growing up. If you had more than one mother/father figure, please answer for the persons who you feel played the most important role in your upbringing. 1 never occurred  2 occasionally occurred  3 often occurred  4 always occurred Father or Guardian  1.  My parent showed with words and gestures that he/she liked me.  2.  My parent refused to speak to me for a long time if I had done anything silly (stupid).  3.  My parent punished me even for small offenses.  4.  I think that my parent wished I had been different in some way.  5.  If I had done something foolish, I could go to my parent and make everything right by asking for his/her forgiveness (apologize).  6.  I felt that my parents liked my brother(s) and/or sister(s) more than he/she liked me.  7.  My parent treated me unjustly (badly) and compared with how he/she treated my sister(s) and/or brother(s).  8.  As a child I was physically punished or scolded in the presence of others.  9.  If things went badly for me, I felt my parent tried to comfort and encourage me.  Mother or Guardian  Society, Love, and Abuse  1 never occurred  2 occasionally occurred  3 often occurred  79  4 always occurred Father or Guardian  10.  My parent gave me more corporal (physical) punishment than I deserved.  11.  My parent would get angry if I didn't help at home when I was asked to.  12.  I felt that it was difficult to approach my parent.  13.  My parent would narrate or say something about what I had said or done in front of others so that I felt ashamed.  14.  My parent showed he/she was interested in my getting good marks.  15.  If I had a difficult task in front of me, I felt support from my parent.  16.  I was treated as a the "black sheep" or "scapegoat" of the family.  17.  My parent wished I had been like somebody else.  18.  I felt my parent thought it was myfault when he/she was unhappy.  19.  My parent showed me that he/she was fond of me.  20.  I think my parent respected my opinions.  21.  I felt that my parent wanted to be with me.  22.  I think my parent was mean and grudging toward me.  23.  I think my parent tried to make my adolescence stimulating, interesting, and instructive (for instance, by giving me good books, arranging for me to go to camp, taking me to clubs).  24.  My parent praised me.  Mother or Guardian  Society, Love, and Abuse  1 never occurred  2 occasionally occurred  3 often occurred  4 always occurred Father or Guardian  25. I could seek comfort from my parent if I was sad. 26. I was punished by my parent without having done anything. 27. My parent allowed me to do the same things my friends did. 28. My parent said he/she did not approve of my behaviour at home. 29. My parent criticized me and told me how lazy and useless I was in front of others. 30. Of my sister(s) and brother(s), I was the one my parent blamed if anything happened. 31. My parent was abrupt with me. 32. My parent would punish me hard, even for trifles (little things). 33. My parent beat me for no reason. 34. My parent showed an interest in my own interests and hobbies. 35. My parent treated me in such a way that I felt ashamed. 36. My parent let my sister(s) and brother(s) have things that I was not allowed to have. 37. I was beaten by my parent. 38. I felt that warmth and tenderness existed between me and my parent. 39. My parent respected the fact that I had other opinions than had he/she.  80  Mother or Guardian  Society, Love, and Abuse  1 never occurred  2 occasionally occurred  3 often occurred  81  4 always occurred Father or Guardian  40.  My parent would be angry with me without letting me know why.  41.  My parent let me go to bed without food.  42.  I felt that my parent was proud when I succeeded in something I had undertaken.  43.  My parent hugged me.  Mother or Guardian  Society, Love, and Abuse  82  Psychological Maltreatment Inventory (PMI) For each of the statements below, please indicate how often you did the behavior during 0 not applicable  1 once  2 twice  3 3-5 times  4 6-10 times  5 11-20 times  6 more than 20 times  1.  I put down my partner's appearance.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  2.  I insulted or shamed my partner in front of others.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  3.  I trusted my partner with members of the opposite sex.  0  4.  I treated my partner like she/he was stupid.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  5.  I was insensitive to my partner's feelings.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  6.  I treated my partner as if her/his feelings were important and worthy of consideration.  0  1 2 3 4 5 6  7.  I told my partner she/he couldn't manage by her/himself.  0  1 2 3 4 5 6  8.  I said things to spite my partner.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  9.  I brought up things from my partner's past to hurt her/him  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  10.  I called my partner names.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  11.  I respected my partner's independence.  0  12.  I swore at my partner.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  13.  I yelled and screamed at my partner.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  14.  I respected my partner's choice of friends.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  15.  I treated my partner like she/he was an inferior.  0  1 2 3 4 5 6  16.  I sulked and refused to talk about a problem.  0  1 2 3 4 5 6  17.  I was willing to talk calmly about problems.  0  1 2 3 4 5 6  1 2 3 4 5 6  1 2 3 4 5 6  Society, Love, and Abuse  0 not applicable  1 once  2 twice  3 3-5 times  4 6-10 times  5 11-20 times  83  6 more than 20 times  18.  I stomped out of the house or yard during a disagreement. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6  19.  I gave my partner the silent treatment.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  20.  I said things to encourage my partner.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  21.  I withheld affection from my partner.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  22.  I did not let my partner talk about her/his feelings.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  23.  I took responsibility for my problems and behaviors.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  24.  I was insensitive to my partner's sexual needs and desires.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  25.  I monitored my partner's time and made her/him account for her/his whereabouts.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  26.  I praised my partner in front of others.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  27.  I treated my partner like she/he was my personal servant.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  28.  I ordered my partner around.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  29.  I told my partner her/his feelings were reasonable and normal.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  30.  I was jealous and suspicious of my partner's friends.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  31.  I was jealous of other men/women.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  32.  I treated my partner like an equal.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  33.  I did not want my partner to go to school or other self - improvement activities.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  34.  I did not want my partner to socialize with her/his same sex friends.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  Society, Love, and Abuse  0 not applicable  1 once  2 twice  3 3-5 times  4 6-10 times  5 11-20 times  84  6 more than 20 times  35.  I respected my partner's intelligence.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  36.  I accused my partner of seeing another man/woman.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  37.  I tried to keep my partner from seeing or talking to her/his family.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  38.  I respected my partner's confidences or kept her/his secrets.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  39.  I interfered in my partner's relationship with family members.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  40.  I tried to keep my partner from doing things to help her/himself.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  41.  I let my partner talk about her/his feelings.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  42.  I told my partner her/his feelings are irrational or crazy.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  43.  I encouraged my partner to go to school or other self - improvement activities.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  44.  I blamed my partner for my problems.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  45.  I tried to turn my partner's family and friends against her/him.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  46.  I was affectionate with my partner.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  47.  I blamed my partner for causing my violent behavior.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  48.  I tried to make my partner feel like she/he was crazy.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  49.  I encouraged my partner to socialize with her/his same sex friends.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  Society, Love, and Abuse  0 not applicable  1 once  2 twice  3 3-5 times  4 6-10 times  5 11-20 times  85  6 more than 20 times  50.  M y moods changed radically, from very calm to very angry and vice versa.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  51.  I blamed my p artner when up set even i f she/he had nothing to do with it.  0  52.  I was sensitive to my partner's sexual needs and desires.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  53.  I tried to convince my partner's family and friends that she/he was crazy.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  54.  I threatened to hurt myself if my partner left me.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  55.  I threatened to have an affair with someone else.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  56.  I made requests politely.  0  57.  I threatened to leave the relationship.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  58.  I encouraged my partner to see or talk to her/his family.  0 1 2 3 4 5 6  1 2 3 4 5 6  1 2 3 4 5 6  Society, Love, and Abuse  MARLOWE-CROWNE SCALE Listed below are a number of statements concerning personal attitudes and traits. Please read each item and decide whether the statement is true or false as it pertains to you personally. Circle the appropriate letter. 1. 2. 3.  Before voting I thoroughly investigate the candidates.  T F  I never hesitate to go out of my way to help someone in trouble.  T F  It is sometimes hard for me to go on with my work if I am not encouraged.  T F  4.  I have never intensely disliked anyone.  T F  5.  On occasion I have had doubts about my ability to succeed in life. I sometimes feel resentful when I don't get my  T F  way.  T F  7.  I am always careful about my manner of dress.  T F  8.  My table manners at home are as good as when I eat out in a restaurant. If I could get into a movie without paying and be sure I was not seen I would probably do it. On a few occasions I have given up doing something because I thought too little of my ability.  6.  9. 10.  T F T F T F  11.  I like to gossip at times.  T F  12.  There have been times when I felt like rebelling against people in authority even though I knew they were right.  T F  No matter who I'm talking to, I'm always a good listener.  T F  I can remember "playing sick" to get out of something.  T F  There have been occasions when I took advantage of someone.  T F  I'm always willing to admit it when I make a mistake.  T F  13. 14. 15. 16. 17.  I always try to practice what I preach.  T F  86  Society, Love, and Abuse  18.  19.  20.  21.  22.  23.  24.  I don't find it particularly difficult to get along with loud mouthed, obnoxious people.  T F  I sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and forget.  T F  When I don't know something I don't at all mind admitting it.  T F  I am always courteous, even to people who are disagreeable.  T F  At times I have really insisted on having things my own way.  T F  There have been occasions when I felt like smashing things.  T F  I would never think of letting someone else be punished for my wrong-doings.  T F  25.  I never resent being asked to return a favor.  T F  26.  I have been irked when people expressed ideas very different from my own. I never make a long trip without checking the safety of my car.  27.  28.  29.  30.  31.  32.  33.  T F T F  There have been times when I was quite jealous of the good fortune of others.  T F  I have almost never felt the urge to tell someone off.  T F  I am sometimes irritated by people who ask favours of me.  T F  I have never felt that I was punished without cause.  T F  I sometimes think when people have a misfortune they only got what they deserved.  T F  I have never deliberately said something that hurt someone's feelings.  T F  87  Society, Love, and Abuse 8 8  Multidimensional Jealousy Scale (MDJ) Please answer the following questions in regard to your present (or most recent) romantic relationship (this person's name should be substituted for "X"). How often do you have the following thoughts about X? Please circle the appropriate number. 1 2 3 4 never very rarely fairly rarely sometimes  5 6 7 fairly often very often all the time  1. I s u s p e c t t h a t X is secretly s e e i n g s o m e o n e of the o p p o s i t e sex. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. I a m w o r r i e d t h a t s o m e m e m b e r of t h e o p p o s i t e sex m a y b e c h a s i n g after X. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. I s u s p e c t t h a t X m a y b e a t t r a c t e d to s o m e o n e else. 1 2 3 4 5 6  7  4. I s u s p e c t t h a t X m a y b e p h y s i c a l l y i n t i m a t e with a n o t h e r m e m b e r of t h e o p p o s i t e sex behind my b a c k . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. I think t h a t s o m e m e m b e r s of t h e o p p o s i t e sex m a y b e r o m a n t i c a l l y i n t e r e s t e d in X. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. I a m w o r r i e d t h a t s o m e o n e of t h e o p p o s i t e sex is trying to s e d u c e X. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7.1 think t h a t X is secretly d e v e l o p i n g a n intimate relationship with s o m e o n e of t h e o p p o s i t e sex. 1 2 3 4 • 5 6 7 8.1 s u s p e c t t h a t X is c r a z y a b o u t m e m b e r s of t h e o p p o s i t e sex. 1 2 - 3 4 5 6 7  How would you emotionally react to the following situations? Please circle the appropriate number. 1 2 very fairly pleased pleased  3 a little bit pleased  4 neutral  5 a bit upset  6 fairly upset  7 very upset  1. X c o m m e n t s to y o u o n ' h o w g r e a t l o o k i n g a p a r t i c u l a r m e m b e r of t h e o p p o s i t e sex is. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  Society, Love, and Abuse 2. X shows a g r e a t d e a l of interest or e x c i t e m e n t in talking to s o m e o n e of t h e sex. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  opposite  3. X smiles in a v e r y friendly m a n n e r to s o m e o n e of t h e o p p o s i t e sex. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. A m e m b e r of t h e o p p o s i t e sex is trying to g e t c l o s e to X all t h e t i m e . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. X is flirting with s o m e o n e of t h e o p p o s i t e sex. 1 2 3 4 5  6  7  6. S o m e o n e of t h e o p p o s i t e sex is d a t i n g X. 1 2 3 4 5  6  7  7. X hugs a n d kisses s o m e o n e of t h e o p p o s i t e sex. 1 2 3 4 5  6  7  8. X works v e r y c l o s e l y with a m e m b e r of t h e o p p o s i t e sex (in s c h o o l or office). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  How often do you engage in the following behaviours?  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 never very rarely fairly rarely sometimes fairly often very often all the time 1. I look t h r o u g h X's d r a w e r s , h a n d b a g , or p o c k e t s . 1 2 3 4 5 6  7  2.1 c a l l X u n e x p e c t e d l y , just to s e e if h e or she is there. 1 2 3 4 5 6  7  3.1 q u e s t i o n X a b o u t previous or present r o m a n t i c relationships. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. I s a y s o m e t h i n g nasty a b o u t s o m e o n e of t h e o p p o s i t e sex if X shows a n interest in that p e r s o n . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. I q u e s t i o n X a b o u t his or her t e l e p h o n e calls. 1 2 3 4 5  6  7  6. I q u e s t i o n X a b o u t his or her w h e r e a b o u t s . 1 2 3 4 5  6  7  7. I join in w h e n e v e r I s e e X talking to a m e m b e r of t h e o p p o s i t e sex. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. I p a y X a surprise visit just to s e e w h o is with him or her. 1 2 3 4 5 6  7  89  Society, Love, and Abuse  90  INCLUSION OF OTHER IN T H E SELF (IOS)  Please circle the picture below which best describes your relationship with your second-best same sex friend.  Please circle the picture below which best describes your relationship with God or another spiritual being.  s  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0086939/manifest

Comment

Related Items