Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Prototype analysis of the concepts of love and commitment Fehr, Beverley Anne 1986

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1986_A1 F53.pdf [ 9.26MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0097046.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0097046-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0097046-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0097046-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0097046-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0097046-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0097046-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0097046-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0097046.ris

Full Text

PROTOTYPE ANALYSIS OF THE CONCEPTS OF LOVE AND COMMITMENT by BEVERLEY ANNE FEHR B.A. (Hons), University of Winnipeg, 1980 M.A., University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1982 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Psychology) We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October, 1986 © Beverley Anne Fehr, 1986 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by h i s or her representatives. It i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date (Itsf k / YZ> r i i Abstract Psychologists have yet to agree on a d e f i n i t i o n of the concepts of love and commitment. Attempts at a c l a s s i c a l d e f i n i t i o n , whereby a concept i s defined in terms of a necessary and s u f f i c i e n t set of c r i t e r i a l a t t r ibutes, have not met with success. The purpose of t h i s research was to tes t the f e a s i b i l i t y of viewing the concepts of love and commitment from a prototype perspective, as well as to shed l i g h t on the r e l a t i o n between these concepts. According to the prototype view, people's knowledge of many natural language categories i s structured around a prototype—a l i s t of features or at t r i b u t e s that are t y p i c a l of the concept, but which do not constitute a set of defining features. Some features of a concept are more central than others, and neighboring concepts share features in overlapping, and cr i s s - c r o s s i n g ways. Boundaries between concepts therefore are blurry and i l l - d e f i n e d . The f e a s i b i l i t y of conceptualizing the everyday concepts of love and commitment as prototypes was tested using Roach's approach. Six studies were conducted. The purpose of the f i r s t four studies was to explore and validate the prototype structure of the concepts of love and commitment. The purpose of the l a s t two was to discover whether the prototype structure of love and commitment had implications for how the dynamics of interpersonal relationships are perceived. In Study One, i i i subjects were asked to l i s t the features of love and/or commitment. In Study Two, another group of subjects rated these features according to how central (prototypical) they were to each concept. As predicted, subjects found i t meaningful to rate the extent to which each feature was a good or poor c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of love I"commaitment] ; they agreed with one another in t h e i r responses. Moreover, c e n t r a l i t y ratings were po s i t i v e l y correlated with frequency of free l i s t i n g in Study One. The c e n t r a l i t y of features of these concepts was then shown to affect certain dependent measures important in psychological research. In Study Three memory for central and peripheral features was examined. It was found that subjects were able to remember v e r i d i c a l l y both central and peripheral features that had been presented. However, as predicted, subjects demonstrated a bias toward remembering central, but not peripheral, features that had not been presented. In Study Four, p r o t o t y p i c a l i t y e f f e c t s in the use of natural language were investigated. Consistent with predictions, i t sounded peculiar to preface central features with hedges l i k e "sort of", while i t sounded natural to hedge peripheral features. The r a t i o n a l e was that hedges serve a kind of "distancing from the prototype" function in everyday language. The purpose of Studies Five and Six was to examine whether the prototype structure of love and commitment influenced how people assess whether a relationship i s moving toward, or away from, increased love or commitment. In Study Five, subjects were presented with a s e r i e s of r e l a t i o n s h i p types that varied in how loving or committed they were. It was hypothesized that central features would be seen as increasingly more applicable as a r e l a t i o n s h i p increased in love [commitment], whereas the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of peripheral features would not vary systematically as a function of the type of r e l a t i o n s h i p being rated. The r e s u l t s conformed to predictions. In Study Six, subjects were presented with a description of a loving and committed r e l a t i o n s h i p . It was expected that v i o l a t i o n s of central a t t r i b u t e s would be perceived as contributing to a greater decrease in love or commitment than would v i o l a t i o n s of peripheral features. Again, r e s u l t s supported predictions. The secondary theme, the r e l a t i o n between the concepts of love and commitment, was addressed i n some way in each of these studies. There are four major views on the r e l a t i o n between the concepts of love and commitment: that they are i d e n t i c a l , completely independent, largely overlapping but p a r t i a l l y independent, and that commitment i s a component of love. From a variety of findings obtained across the six studies, i t was concluded that the layperson's conception of these concepts f i t s best with the view that they are largely overlapping but p a r t i a l l y independent concepts. V Overall, the r e s u l t s from these studies suggested that people need not be able to define "love" or "commitment" in order to use these concepts in a predictable and orderly way. Prototype methodology was successful in uncovering the content and structure of the concepts of love and commitment., and in elucidating the everyday person's view of the r e l a t i o n between these concepts. v i TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract . . . i i L i s t of Tables v i i i L i s t of Figures ix Acknowledgments x Introduction 1 The Search for a D e f i n i t i o n of Love 3 The Search for a D e f i n i t i o n of Commitment 7 Is a C l a s s i c a l D e f i n i t i o n Possible? 10 The Prototype View 14 Can Love and Commitment be Conceptualized as Prototypes? 22 The Relation between the Concepts of Love and Commitment 25 Overview of the Present Study 29 Part I Prototype Structure of the Concepts of Love and Commitment 32 Study One: Free L i s t i n g of the Features of Love and Commit-ment 32 Study Two: C e n t r a l i t y Ratings of the Features of Love and Commitment 54 Study Three: Memory for the Features of Love and Commit-ment 67 Study Four: Use of Hedges as Evidence of Prototype Struc-ture 36 v i i Summary 92 Part. II Prototypes of Love and Commitment in the Analysis of Interpersonal Relationships 94 Study Five: A p p l i c a b i l i t y of Central and Peripheral Features to Loving and Committed Relationships 97 Study Six: Viola t i o n s of Features of Love and Commitment 110 General Discussion 126 Are Love and Commitment Proto t y p i c a l l y Organized Con-cepts? 126 Why Study the Layperson's Concept of Love and Commit-ment? 130 Relation Between the Concepts of Love and Commitment ....134 A General Concept of Love and of Commitment: Fact or Fict i o n ? 142 Types of Love and Commitment 143 C l i n i c a l Implications of a Prototype Analysis of the Concepts of Love and Commitment 147 Future Directions 148 Conclusion 153 References 156 Appendices 191 v i i i LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Free l i s t i n g of features of love and commitment ....169 Table 2. Centr a l i t y ratings as a function of form of question-naire 171 Table 3. Mean c e n t r a l i t y ratings of the features of love and commitment 172 Table 4. Memory for central and peripheral features 174 Table 5. Mean p e c u l i a r i t y ratings of the features of love and commitment 176 Table 6. Types of rela t i o n s h i p s 178 Table 7. Mean impact ratings of vio l a t i o n s of the features of love and commitment 180 Table 8. Correlations among measures of the prototype structure of the concepts of love and commitment 182 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Relation between the concepts of love and commit-ment 183 Figure 2. Number of features generated for love and for commit-ment 185 Figure 3. A p p l i c a b i l i t y of central and peripheral features to types of loving r e l a t i o n s h i p s 187 Figure 4. A p p l i c a b i l i t y of central and peripheral features to types of committed relationships 189 X Acknowledgments I would l i k e to express my gratitude to my advisor and fr i e n d , Dan Perlman, for the support and encouragement he so generously provided from the inception of t h i s project to i t s completion. The writing of t h i s thesis was greatly f a c i l i t a t e d by his penchant f o r wearing his editor's cap. I would also l i k e to thank the members of my committee: Jennifer Campbell for her invaluable methodological and conceptual input, which extended f a r beyond the c a l l of duty; and Lawrence Ward for his i n c i s i v e comments and suggestions. F i n a l l y , I wish to thank Ross for his unconditional demonstration of these concepts during the ups and downs that characterized my academic study of them. 1 INTRODUCTION "Love and marriage go together l i k e a horae and carriage--you can't have one without the other". The words of t h i s old song are relevant to the contemporary issue of how love and commitment are related. T r a d i t i o n a l l y , commitment to a loving r e l a t i o n s h i p was defined as marriage. While not everyone agrees that "you can't have one without the other", few would disagree that love and commitment are of c r u c i a l importance in people's l i v e s . Researchers have found the concepts of love and commitment useful in characterizing interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p s , and, p a r t i c u l a r l y , in thinking about what draws indivi d u a l s together to form and maintain r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Kelley (1983) l i s t s a number of reasons why the concepts of love and commitment deserve s c i e n t i f i c attention. F i r s t , the kinds of questions people ask about their own close relationships almost invariably involve love and commitment issues (e.g., "How can I be sure my partner loves me?" "What can I do to get my partner to make a commitment to our re l a t i o n s h i p ? " ) . A second reason Kelley gives i s that the analysis of these concepts "takes us deeply into the personal and interpersonal processes involved in the formation and continuation of close heterosexual relationships"(p.267). F i n a l l y , he states that an analysis of love and commitment can serve to i l l u s t r a t e the problems that a r i s e when complex phenomena with r i c h everyday associations are dismembered for s c i e n t i f i c or conceptual analysis. 2 Indeed, the search for a d e f i n i t i o n of "love" and of "commitment" carried out in peychology and other related d i s c i p l i n e s has been marked with c o n f l i c t , confusion, and disagreement. Such a singular lack of success r a i s e s the question of whether a d e f i n i t i o n of the words love and commitment i s even possible--or rather, a d e f i n i t i o n in the c l a s s i c a l sense whereby concepts are defined by a necessary and s u f f i c i e n t set of c r i t e r i a l a t t r i b u t e s . Recently, psychologists have begun to explore an a l t e r n a t i v e form of d e f i n i t i o n known as the prototype view. Prototypes are defined as the clearest cases or best examples of a category. Within the prototype view, category members can be ordered in terms of t h e i r degree of resemblance to the prototypical cases. Membership in the category i s a matter of degree, rather than all-or-none as in the c l a s s i c a l view, and there are no sharp boundaries separating members from non-members. The prototype view may shed l i g h t on how people use and understand the concepts of love and commitment without being able to define them. The purpose of the research to be reported here was to te s t the p o s s i b i l i t y that the everyday concepts of love and commitment may be better understood from the prototype view. In other words, t h i s research attempts to describe a form of f o l k knowledge or everyday way of thinking. It does not attempt to t e l l psychologists how they should categorize the phenomena commonly referred to by the words "love" and "commitment". Kelley (1S83) convincingly argues that the phenomena to 3 which theae concepts refer have much in common, and, in many cases, are intimately related. On the other hand, he also asserta that love and commitment can and should be diatinguiahed. Not everyone agrees with Kelley'a poaition on the re l a t i o n between the concepta of love and commitment. Some prefer to treat these concepta aa i d e n t i c a l , othera aee them as completely independent, and s t i l l others aee commitment as a component of love. A prototype analyaia can provide an interesting perapective on t h i s controversy by revealing the layperson's view of the r e l a t i o n between theae concepta. Thua the purpoae of the reaearch to be reported here was not only to explore the prototype structure of the concepts of love and commitment, but also to elucidate the everyday view of the r e l a t i o n between theae concepts. An assumption that i s i m p l i c i t in a prototype analysis of a concept i s that attempts at defining the concept in a c l a s s i c a l sense have been unsuccessful. In the next section, d e f i n i t i o n s of love and of commitment are considered, and the question i s raised, "Is a c l a s s i c a l d e f i n i t i o n of these concepts possible?" The Search for a Def i n i t i o n of Love Love i s elusive and d i f f i c u l t to define. Aa the popular aong of aome yeara back aaya i t , "Who can explain i t , wise men don't even t r y ! " But where wise men shy away, there are always fool s who are w i l l i n g to make the attempt (Swensen, 1972, p.86.). 4 Contrary to the words of the song, wise men and women have made many attempts to define love. When tracing the history of how love has been conceptualized, writers t y p i c a l l y begin with the ancient Greeks and end with current s o c i a l science d e f i n i t i o n s (e.g., Brehm, 1985). With regard to s o c i a l science d e f i n i t i o n s of love, Brehm comments that: S o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s have had as much trouble defining love as philosophers and poets. We have books on love, theories on love, and research on love. Yet no one has a single, simple d e f i n i t i o n that i s widely accepted by other s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s ( p . 9 0 ) . There i s tremendous variety in the sorts of d e f i n i t i o n s of love offered by s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s . Watson (1919) defined love as an innate emotion e l i c i t e d by cutaneous stimulation of the erogenous zones. According to Freud (1922/1951), the desire f o r sexual union i s at the core of emotion, and when that desire i s blocked, one compensates for the resultant f r u s t r a t i o n and disappointment by i d e a l i z i n g the other person and f a l l i n g i n love with him or her. Fromm (1956), in the Art of Loving, regarded love as a device we employ to reduce our sense of emotional i s o l a t i o n and loneliness. More recently, Rubin (1970) declared that "love i s an a t t i t i u d e held by a person toward a p a r t i c u l a r other person, involving a predisposition to think, f e e l , and behave i n c e r t a i n ways toward that other person"(p.265). According to Centers (1975): 5 Love on the part of one individual for another la the reaponae or reaponae evoked in the f i r a t i n d i v i d u a l through his experiencing of rewards, pleasure, or need g r a t i f l c a t i o n a aa producta of hia interactions with the other <p.45>. For Swensen (1972), love i s behavior. His analysis of love revealed behaviors such as giving g i f t a , ahared a c t i v i t i e s , s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e of intimate personal information, etc. According to Skolnick (1978), love i s "a constructed experience b u i l t with f e e l i n g s , ideas, and c u l t u r a l symbols" (p.104). It i s d i f f i c u l t to imagine what emotion would not f i t t h i s d e f i n i t i o n . S i m i l a r l y , d e f i n i t i o n s of love in terras of a f f e c t ( f e e l i n g , emotion), physiological arousal, and cognition (e.g., Lasswell & Laaswell, 1976) are so broad that i t i s d i f f i c u l t to imagine what in psychology (e.g., attitudes, motives) would not be an emotion, so defined. Researchers l i k e H a t f i e l d and Walster (1978) prefer to dichotomize the concept and define each type separately: Passionate love i s a wildly emotional state, a confusion of f e e l i n g s : tenderness and sexuality, el a t i o n and pain, anxiety and r e l i e f , altruism and jealousy. Companionate love, on the other hand, i s a lower-key emotion. It's f r i e n d l y a f f e c t i o n and deep attachment to someone(p.2). Another approach to the conceptualization of love i s to apeak of the components of love. For example, Rubin (1973) l i a t a 6 three: caring, needing, and intimacy. Lee (1977) muses: Perhaps the reader w i l l expect me to begin by defining my terms. What do I mean by "love" or "loving"? There's the rub! The f i c t i o n a l and non-f i c t i o n a l l i t e r a t u r e i s strewn with c o n f l i c t i n g d e f i n i t i o n s of love(p.l73). He prefers to speak of st y l e s of loving rather than add to the confusion by off e r i n g yet another d e f i n i t i o n . We have seen love defined as an emotion, as behavior, an attitude, a response, a constructed experience, as physical passion, and so on. Lasswell and Lobsenz (1980) comment that: while we believe in love, we can seldom agree on what love la.. The r i c h f a b r i c of language runs threadbare when confronted even with the basic task of d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g among the various kinds of feelings encompassed in that single word(p.2). Berscheid and Walster (1978) make the same point i n t h e i r well-known book on interpersonal a t t r a c t i o n when they say: One might think i t would be easy for s c i e n t i s t s to devise a formal d e f i n i t i o n of interpersonal a t t r a c -t i o n . The words " l i k e " and "love", " d i s l i k e " and "hate" are among the most frequently used in the English language. Everyone knows what they mean... yet s c i e n t i s t s have found i t impossible to agree on a single d e f i n i t i o n of attraction"(p.1). Lasswell and Lobsenz are emphatic i n stating why t h i s may be the case. In the i r words, "The fac t i s that by i t s nature love 7 has never been and cannot. be susceptible to a single precise definition"(1980, p.2). The Search for a D e f i n i t i o n of Commitment In h i s c l a s s i c book on commitment, K e i s l e r (1971) observed that "[The word] commitment... i s in the everyday language of our society, with a l l the emotional overtones, special meanings and hidden implications that suggests"(p.25). He goes on to say: Actually, very l i t t l e experimental work has been done on commitment, in s p i t e of the popularity given the term. Part of the problem has been pin-ning down a clear d e f i n i t i o n of commitment (p.26). Again, we f i n d a potpourri of d e f i n i t i o n s . One general c l a s s of d e f i n i t i o n s seems to involve the notion of engaging i n (or pledging to engage in) a consistent l i n e of a c t i v i t y . Most of the writers o f f e r i n g t h i s kind of d e f i n i t i o n come from the cognitive dissonance t r a d i t i o n . For example, J.W. Brehm and Cohen (1962) stated that: We assume that a person i s committed when he has decided to do or not do a c e r t a i n thing, when he has chosen one (or more) al t e r n a t i v e s , when he a c t i v e l y engages i n a given behavior. Any one or a combination of these behaviors can be considered a committment(p.7). S i m i l a r l y , K e i s l e r defined commitment as "the pledging or bonding of the i n d i v i d u a l to behavioral acts"(p.29). Rubin 8 (1973) accepted t h i s d e f i n i t i o n , stating that: Commitment... may be defined as the pledging of oneself to a l i n e of action, whether i t be the f i g h t for a p o l i t i c a l ideology or the struggle fo r intimacy with another person(p.160). Becker (1960, 1964), a s o c i o l o g i s t , also viewed commitment as pursuing a consistent l i n e of action across a variety of s i t u a t i o n s . Within a more e x p l i c i t l y relationship-oriented context, Hinde (1979) states that: The term commitment i s used here in a general sense to refer to s i t u a t i o n s i n which one or both parties either accept t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p as continuing i n d e f i n i t e l y or d i r e c t t h e i r behavior towards ensuring i t s continuance or towards optimizing i t s properties (p.132). Levinger (1980) defines commitment as "the avowal of an intent to maintain a r e l a t i o n s h i p over some period of time"(p.531). Leik and Leik (1977) conceive of commitment as an absorbing state. They say "We define interpersonal commitment as an unwillingness to consider any exchange partner other than that (those) of the current relationship"(p.301). Within the exchange t r a d i t i o n , Ruabult (1980a,1980b) speaks of commitment as f e e l i n g s of psychological attachment, and intent to maintain a r e l a t i o n s h i p . According to her investment model, commitment i s influenced by three variables: s a t i s f a c t i o n , a l t e r n a t i v e s and investments. Drawing on the work 9 of Thibaut and Kelley (1959), she asserts that an individual w i l l be s a t i s f i e d with a relationship to the extent that i t provides high rewards, low costs, and exceeds t h e i r comparison le v e l for a l t e r n a t i v e s . Thus, to the degree that people are s a t i s f i e d with a r e l a t i o n s h i p , they should become more committed to maintaining the relationship. People w i l l also become more committed i f they perceive that they have poor alternatives to the current r e l a t i o n s h i p . F i n a l l y , to the extent that individuals have invested inextricable resources (e.g., time, money, emotional energy) in the r e l a t i o n s h i p , they w i l l be more committed to i t . In the realm of marital relationships, Rosenblatt (1977), l i k e Levinger, defines commitment as "an avowal or inferred intent of a person to maintain a relationship"(p.74) and Dean and Spanier (1974) speak of commitment as "the strength of an individual's desire and determination to continue a particular marital relationship"(p.113). As was the case with love, some writers prefer to divide the concept into two types. Johnson (1982), fo r example, does not define commitment per se, but rather speaks of two types of commitment: personal and s t r u c t u r a l . Personal commitment refers to "an i n d i v i d u a l ' s dedication to the maintenance of a l i n e of action"(p.53), while st r u c t u r a l commitment re f e r s to "external constraints which come into play as a consequence of i n i t i a t i o n of action and which make i t d i f f i c u l t to discontinue, should one's sense of personal commitment decline"(p.53). Si m i l a r l y , Hinde (1979) d i f f e r e n t i a t e s between exogenous commitment, where 10 r e l a t i o n s h i p continuity i s imposed from outside, and endogenous, where commitment i s sought from within. Thus, once again we see a concept being c l a s s i f i e d as a variety of things: behavior, a state, an intention, etc. Johnson notes that: ... the concept of commitment has arisen frequently in discussions of courtship and marriage, but has not as yet been pinned down to the extent that i t could be used e f f e c t i v e l y in research in that area(p.395). This sentiment i s echoed by Hinde (1979) who observes that "one of the most important aspects of some relationships, but one least studied, concerns the extent to which participants are committed to i t " ( p . l 3 1 ) . Johnson (1973) suggests why commitment in r e l a t i o n s h i p s i s rarely studied: The concept of commitment, although in common use among s o c i o l o g i s t s and psychologists has not been subject to conceptual s p e c i f i c a t i o n or empirical grounding which i s necessary to tranform i t from an i n t u i t i v e l y appealing idea into a viable scien-t i f i c variable(p.395). Is a C l a s s i c a l D e f i n i t i o n Possible? The prototype analysis of love and commitment to be offered here w i l l not provide psychologists with a d e f i n i t i o n of these phenomena. But the fact that experts have been unable to agree on d e f i n i t i o n s of these terms suggests that laypeople may not base t h e i r use of the words "love" and "commitment" on a 11 c l a s s i c a l d e f i n i t i o n . The experts' arguments also suggest that they have assumed that such a c l a s s i c a l d e f i n i t i o n can be found. This may be because concepta have t r a d i t i o n a l l y been thought of as defined by a aet of neceaaary and a u f f i c i e n t c r i t e r i a l a t t r i b u t e s . Category memberahip i a therefore an all-or-none phenomenon--any inatance which meets the c r i t e r i o n i a a member, other thinga are non-membera. Boundariea between categories are thus c l e a r l y defined. Becauae each member must poaaess the p a r t i c u l a r set of a t t r i b u t e s that i s the c r i t e r i o n f o r category inclu s i o n , a l l members have a f u l l and equal degree of membership, and therefore are equally representative of the category. The t r a d i t i o n a l , c l a s s i c a l view of concepta fos t e r s the assumption that a precise d e f i n i t i o n of love and commitment i s both necessary and possible. This aasumption about the nature of concepts seems to have been i m p l i c i t i n the search for a d e f i n i t i o n of love and of commitment. This assumption has not been accepted by everyone, however. William James (1929) opened his book The V a r i e t i e s of  Religious Experience with the comment that "most books on the philosophy of r e l i g i o n t r y to begin with a precise d e f i n i t i o n of what i t s essence consists of"(p.26). Adhering to t h i s t r a d i t i o n , James attempted to define personal r e l i g i o u s experiences. He discovered that for each component or attribute he proposed, he could rea d i l y generate an example of a r e l i g i o u s experience i n which that p a r t i c u l a r component was absent. Moreover, the issue of how personal r e l i g i o n could be distinguished from one's conscience or morality was problematic. After much debate, James 12 tenta t i v e l y suggested that r e l i g i o u s experiences might be characterized by solemnity, seriousness, and tenderness. However, he discovered that again q u a l i f i e r s were necessary. For instance, " If glad, we must not grin or snicker... If sad we must not scream or curse"<p.38). F i n a l l y , James was compelled to conclude that: ...do what we w i l l with our defining, the truth must at l a s t be confronted that we are dealing with a f i e l d of experience that cannot be sharply drawn. The pretension, under such cond-i t i o n s to be rigorously " s c i e n t i f i c " or "exact" in our terms would only stamp us as lacking in understanding of our task. Things are more or less divine, states of mind are more or less r e l i g i o u s , reactions are more or less t o t a l , but the boundaries are always misty, and i t i s everywhere a question of amount and degree (p.38). In l i g h t of his o r i g i n a l purpose, namely defining r e l i g i o n , James' f i n a l statement on the matter was, "the word r e l i g i o n cannot stand for any single p r i n c i p l e or essence, but i s rather a c o l l e c t i v e name."<p.26). Simi l a r l y , Wittgenstein (1953) attempted to define "games". He speculated that a game could be defined as an event in which there i s competition between players. However, consider children playing ring-around-the-rosy. This i s a game i n which there i s no competition between players. He then speculated that games might rather be defined as requiring s k i l l . However, the s k i l l s 13 required to play chess, hide-and-seek, and tennis seem very d i f f e r e n t in nature, and there are games of chance that require no s k i l l at a l l . Each d e f i n i t i o n seemed inadequate; Wittgenstein found that for every example supporting a p a r t i c u l a r d e f i n i t i o n , an equal number of counterexamples could be found. Like James, he eventually concluded that a concept l i k e "game" cannot be e x p l i c i t l y defined. He i l l u s t r a t e d t h i s point with the following analogy: In spinning a thread we twist f i b r e on f i b r e and the strength of the thread does not reside in the fact that some one f i b r e runs through the whole length, but i n the overlapping of many f i b r e s <p.32). The absence of a defining feature or set of features precludes the establishment of a game/nongame boundary. If a concept l i k e "game" could be defined by a necessary and s u f f i c i e n t set of features, then any instance that possessed the c r i t e r i a l features would be a game, and any instance that did not possess the c r i t e r i a l features would not be a game. Boundaries between games and nongames would therefore be well defined. However, as Wittgenstein demonstrated, the concept "game" does not possess a set of necessary and s u f f i c i e n t c r i t e r i a l a t t r i b u t e s . Different games share d i f f e r e n t a t t r i b u t e s that vary in kind and number. Some att r i b u t e s are also common to neighboring concepts r e s u l t i n g in i n d i s t i n c t between-category boundaries. Wittgenstein argued that a concept with blurred edges i s , however, no less a concept than one in which the 14 boundaries are sharply defined. The Prototype View One alte r n a t i v e to the c l a s s i c a l view of concepts i s subsumed under the rubric "prototype theory". James alluded to much of what i s now c a l l e d "prototype theory" i n The Va r i e t i e s  of Religious Experience, although Wittgenstein i s generally credited as the founding father of t h i s view. In the 18th century Bishop Berkeley raised questions concerning the role of prototypes in psychological processes, stimulating modern day psychologists to investigate t h i s issue empi r i c a l l y . Eleanor Rosch and her colleagues have been mainly responsible for rekindling an intere s t i n t h i s area. According to Rosch (1973), categories are composed of a "core meaning" which consists of the clearest cases or best examples of the category. These clearest cases or best examples are referred to as prototypes. Category members d i f f e r in terms of degree of resemblance to the prototypical cases. This means that a l l category members are not equivalent, and can be ordered in terms of how representative they are of the category. Exemplars that are the most representative of the category share the greatest number of attri b u t e s with a l l other members of the category. Leas t y p i c a l exemplars have fewer at t r i b u t e s in common with the prototypical cases and also have a greater proportion of at t r i b u t e s i n common with other, neighboring categories. Boundaries between categories are therefore i l l - d e f i n e d . Consider, for example, some of the q u a l i t i e s o r d i n a r i l y treated 15 aa att r i b u t e s In c l a s s i f y i n g animals: "coat" (fur, feathers), "oral opening" (mouth, beak), and "primary mode of locomotion" ( f l y i n g , on f o o t ) . Mervis and Rosch (1981) point out that robins and sparrows, prototypical members of the category " b i r d " share a l l of these q u a l i t i e s : feathers, beak, and f l y i n g . Turkeys are leas prototypical exemplars of the category. Turkeys do not share the "primary mode of locomotion" a t t r i b u t e with robins and sparrows. Penguins are even less representative of the category " b i r d " and do not share the feathers and f l y i n g a t t r i b u t e s with sparrows and robins. As t h i s example i l l u s t r a t e s , prototypes can also be described in terms of the attributes or features which c o n s i t i t u t e them. For example, Davis and Todd (1985) state that: The research of Rosch... suggests quite strongly that people's knowledge of category membership i s structured around a prototype--a l i s t of features or a t t r i b u t e s that are t y p i c a l of the class but which do not constitute a set of necessary and s u f f i c i e n t conditions to define the category (p.17). S i m i l a r l y , Horowitz, de S. French, and Anderson (1982) o f f e r the following d e f i n i t i o n : A prototype i s a the o r e t i c a l notion consisting of the most common features or properties of members of the category. A l l of these properties charac-t e r i z e at least some members, but in actual prac-t i c e , no one property i s either necessary or suf-f i c i e n t f or membership in the category (p.185). 1 6 In the same way that some members of a category are more prototypical than others, i t has been demonstrated that some features of a concept are more prototypical than others. For example, Horowitz et a l . report that features l i k e " f e e l s separate from others, d i f f e r e n t " , " f e e l s unloved, not cared f o r " , "thinks 'I want a f r i e n d ' " are prototypical features of loneliness. The c l a s s i c a l view of concepts, i n contrast, advocates d i s t i n c t category boundaries, and a s p e c i f i a b l e set of necessary and s u f f i c i e n t c r i t e r i a l a t t r i b u t e s . Each exemplar i s therefore equally representative of the category. The c l a s s i c a l view of concepts t y p i c a l l y has been i m p l i c i t in the concept formation paradigm, in which subjects learn the c r i t e r i a l a t t r i b u t e s for a concept, e.g., blue and c i r c l e . If the target subset consists of the conjunction "blue c i r c l e " , with s i z e as an i r r e l e l v a n t attribute, i t does not make sense to ask i f the large or small c i r c l e i s a better example of the concept "blue c i r c l e " . However, i t i s not necessary to choose between the c l a s s i c a l view and the prototype view-both may be correct i n representing something of the way in which we think about some concepts. Undoubtedly some categories and some kinds of processing of categories are all-or-none phenomena. Something either i s or i s not a one d o l l a r b i l l ; someone either i s or i s not pregnant. Si m i l a r l y , one would probably not say that a p a r t i c u l a r person i s "sort of" the Prime Minister of Canada. On the other hand, categories l i k e d o l l a r b i l l s and Prime Ministers may not be representative of the majority of concepts. 17 The notion that prototypes play a role in psychological processing of some concepts has been supported amply through research. These early studies in cognitive pyschology generally Involved creating the prototypes of categories, l i k e geometric forms. Subjects were then presented with deviations of the prototype, to see how they c l a s s i f i e d them (as well as the prototype which they had not seen) and/or how e a s i l y they learned or remembered them. The idea of there being a prototype for a category i s not new; Bishop Berkeley raised t h i s issue a long time ago: In his mind's eye a l l images of t r i a n g l e s seemed to have rather s p e c i f i c properties. They were equ i l a t e r a l or isosceles or r i g h t t r i a n g l e s , and he searched in vain for a mental image of the "universal t r i a n g l e " . Although i t i s easy to define what we mean by a t r i a n g l e , i t i s not clear what the "perfect" t r i a n g l e looks l i k e . We see l o t s of d i f f e r e n t kind of t r i a n g l e s ; from t h i s variety what do we create in our mind as the basis of recognizing a triangle? (Cited i n Calfee, 1975, p.222). The speculation i n v i t e d by Berkeley's search for the "perfect t r i a n g l e " culminated several centuries l a t e r in what has i t s e l f become a prototypic experiment by Posner, Goldsmith and Welton (1967). These investigators created the prototype of a t r i a n g l e and other forms, and then presented subjects with d i s t o r t i o n s of the prototypes. It was found that subjects could 18 c l a s s i f y the d i s t o r t i o n s of a p a r t i c u l a r type into a common category. Patterns derived from another prototype were grouped together. In a subsequent c l a s s i f i c a t i o n task, the o r i g i n a l prototypes were included in the set of s t i m u l i to be grouped. Subjects c l a s s i f i e d the prototypes (which had not been previously presented) as accurately as the d i s t o r t i o n s that they had grouped in the f i r s t task. Franks and Bransford (1971) constructed a s e r i e s of figures, one card consisting of the prototype, and the remainder "transformations", which varied in the number of deviations (distance) from the prototype. Subjects were required to reproduce the transformations during the " t r a i n i n g phase" of the experiment. A subsequent recognition task included the prototype (not previously seen) and the transformations. The investigators discovered that subjects "recognized" the unseen prototype with greater p r o b a b i l i t y than i t s previously seen transformations. Moreover, they did so with a greater degree of confidence. It was also found that the recognition ratings were related to transformational distance, with the prototype most frequently recognized, transformations of one permutation next, and so on. Reed (1972) conducted several studies involving a r t i f i c i a l faces in which the features (e.g., eye placement, length of nose, height of forehead) were varied. In a t y p i c a l problem, subjects were asked to c l a s s i f y these schematic faces into one of two rows of faces. According to Reed, "the dominant strategy was to form an abstract image or prototype to represent each category and to c l a s s i f y test patterns on the basis of 19 s i m i l a r i t y to the prototypes"<p.401). In reviewing these studies. Bourne, Oominowski, and Loftus (1979) comment that "the stimulus material on which conceptual problems have been structured i s r e l a t i v e l y simple, highly dimensionalized, and a r t i f i c i a l " (p. 205). They advocated a s h i f t from studies i n which the prototypes were i n t e n t i o n a l l y created by the experimenters to the domain of natural concepts. Rosch and her associates have been instrumental in a r t i c u l a t i n g and re-kindling an i n t e r e s t in the approach to categorization of natural language concepta suggested by James, Wittgenstein, and the modern day psychologists mentioned. I n i t i a l l y , Rosch's research focused on color categories (Heider, 1971, 1972). In a seri e s of studies, she demonstrated that there are s a l i e n t areas of the color space (focal colors) which are given the shortest names and are named most quickly across languages. Focal colors are also most accurately recognized across cultures and are paired with t h e i r corresponding names with the fewest errors. A developmental study by Mervis, C a t l i n , and Rosch (1975) revealed that f o c i f o r color become established and s t a b i l i z e d e a r l i e r than boundaries, and fo c a l judgments are more stable than boundary judgments. Rosch then extended her work to semantic categories f o r everyday objects (Roach 1973, 1974, 1975a, 1975b, 1978a, 1978b, 1981; Rosch & Mervis 1975; Rosch, Mervis, Gray, Johnson, & Boyes-Braem 1976a,1976b; Rosch, Simpson & M i l l e r 1976). (See Mervis & Rosch, 1981, for a review of t h i s l i t e r a t u r e ) . In t h i s research, representativeness of category members was measured 20 through subjects' ratings of goodness-of-example for natural language categories l i k e f r u i t , sport, vehicle, bir d , and so on. Reaction times in a category v e r i f i c a t i o n task were shorter to prototypical exemplars (Rosch, 1973). Priming (prior presentation of the category name) f a c i l i t a t e d recognition for highly t y p i c a l but not f o r less t y p i c a l exemplars (Rosch, 1975b). It was also demonstrated that t y p i c a l exemplars share the most at t r i b u t e s , while less t y p i c a l exemplars have fewer att r i b u t e s in common with the prototypical cases, and also have a greater number of att r i b u t e s in common with adjacent categories (Rosch & Mervis, 1975). Some of the major concepts in psychology have recently been re-conceptualized i n l i g h t of the prototype view of concepts. Cantor, Smith, French, and Hezzich (1980) addressed a problematic aspect of psy c h i a t r i c diagnosis--namely that many patients do not f i t into one and only one category. Some patients appear to be prototypical examples of schizophrenia, depression, or other diagnostic categories, but other patients are rather poor examples. From a prototype view, the blurry boundaries of the diagnostic categories can be viewed as orderly and predictable, rather than problematic. Empirical evidence on diagnostic judgments supported hypotheses derived from the prototype view of these categories. Cantor and Mischel (1979a) have also applied t h i s view to an analysis of personality types. Extraversion, for example, can be formulated in terms of a "prototypical extravert". These researchers also presented subjects with statements about 21 various personality types (Cantor & Miachel, 1977). In a subsequent recognition task, subjects "recognized" highly prototypical statements that had not been previously presented with greater certainty than statements of intermediate degrees of t y p i c a l i t y that they had seen. Neisaer (1979) argued that no single a b i l i t y or single mental process can serve as an adequate d e f i n i t i o n of in t e l l i g e n c e . He suggested that the concept of i n t e l l i g e n c e i s a category which i s organized in terms of a prototype. Actual persons resemble the " i n t e l l i g e n c e " prototype to varying degrees and along varying dimensions. Thus two equally i n t e l l i g e n t persons could be quite d i f f e r e n t in t h e i r actual mental s k i l l s . One i n t e l l i g e n t person might be extremely good at solving the Rubik's cube and cross-word puzzles but mediocre in t e l l i n g jokes and f i l l i n g out income tax forms. Another equally i n t e l l i g e n t person might have these attributes in reverse. Cantor, Mischel and Schwartz (1982) conducted a prototype analysis of psychological situations l i k e p arties, work, therapy sessions, etc. They found that people shared r e l a t i v e l y orderly and e a s i l y r e t r i e v a b l e prototypes for 36 categories studied. Naive perceivers agreed about person-situation matches, and shared knowledge of the moat prototypic behaviors and personality types associated with d i f f e r e n t types of si t u a t i o n s . S i m i l a r l y , Tversky and Hemenway (1983) constructed a hierarchy of enviromental scenes (e.g., school, home, beach, mountains) based on the prototype approach. Broughton (1984) used the prototype approach as an organizational p r i n c i p l e for combining 22 items into personality scales. He found that the prototype strategy outperformed t r a d i t i o n a l strategies (e.g., empirical, factor analytic) in predicting peer ratings from a f r a t e r n i t y sample. Fehr and Russell (Fehr, 1982; Fehr & Russell, 1984; Fehr, Russell & Ward, 1982) documented the lack of agreement on d e f i n i t i o n s of emotion, and suggested that emotion may be a pr o t o t y p i c a l l y organized concept. They found that the prototype approach worked well when applied to the domain of emotion concepts. They argue that rather than attempting to define emotion in terms of a set of necessary and s u f f i c i e n t c r i t e r i a l a t t r i b u t e s , emotion may best be thought of in terms of the best examples of the category. Emotions l i k e happiness, sadness, love, fear were found to be most representative of the concept, while members l i k e boredom, respect, worry and so on were found to be peripheral members. While i t may appear that v i r t u a l l y every concept i s a candidate for a prototype analysis, concepts l i k e i n t e l l i g e n c e , emotion, etc. have certain features i n common. F i r s t , attempts at a c l a s s i c a l d e f i n i t i o n of these concepta have been unsuccessful. Second, theae concepta tend to be i n the layperson's vocabulary. Each of theae atatementa aeema true for love and commitment, which auggests that they, too, might be amenable to a prototype analysis. Can Love and Commitment be Conceptualized as Prototypes? How might the concepts of love and commitment be 23 conceptualized from a prototype perapective? In approaching such an iaaue, the leaaon that can be learned from James (1929) warrants lengthy quotation: l e t us not f a l l immediately into a one-aided view of our subject, but l e t ua rather admit f r e e l y at the outaet that we may very l i k e l y f i n d no one essence, but many charactera which may al t e r n a t e l y be equally important in r e l i g i o n . If we ahould inquire for the eaaence of "government", for exam-ple, one man might t e l l ua i t waa authority, ano-ther aubmission, another polic e , another an army, another an assembly, another a system of laws; yet a l l the while i t would be true that no concrete government can exi s t without a l l these things, one of which i s more important at one moment and oth-ers at another. The man who knows government most completely troubles himself least about a d e f i n i -t i o n which s h a l l give t h e i r essence. Enjoying an intimate acquaintance with a l l t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r i -t i e s in turn, he would naturally regard an abs-t r a c t conception i n which these things were uni-f i e d as a thing more misleading than enlighten-ing and why may not r e l i g i o n be a conception equally complex? (p.27). Substituting "love" or "commitment" for " r e l i g i o n " in t h i s quotation i s evocative. As was argued e a r l i e r , attempts at defining these terms have not been p a r t i c u l a r l y successful or 24 illuminating, but have met the same fate as the search for d e f i n i t i o n s of games and r e l i g i o u s experiences. The thesis of t h i s research i s that the concepts of love and commitment lack a c l a s s i c a l d e f i n i t i o n and are organized as prototypes, with no clear boundary separating these concepts from related concepta. What are the implications of re-conceptualizing love and commitment the way that concepts l i k e i n t e l l i g e n c e , p s y c h i a t r i c diagnosis, personality types, emotion, and so on have been conceptualized? If love and commitment are p r o t o t y p i c a l l y organized, one would expect that neither would possess a set of necessary and s u f f i c i e n t set of c r i t e r i a l features. Rather, features would vary i n the extent to which they came to mind, and no single feature or combination of features would be c r i t e r i a l . Further, some of these features would be considered more central to each concept than would others. These features would tend to be more s a l i e n t in memory than peripheral features, and t h i s gradient of c e n t r a l i t y should be evident i n natural language use. On the other hand, i f love and commitment are c l a s s i c a l l y defined concepts, one would expect that each would consist of a necessary and s u f f i c i e n t set of c r i t e r i a l features. Thus no one feature would be considered more central than another, and the boundaries between the concepts would be well-defined. It seems that looking at love and commitment as concepts with blurred edges could be p o t e n t i a l l y u s e f u l . Wittgenstein (1953) commented: One might say that the concept "game" i s a 25 concept, with blurred edges. But i s a blurred concept a concept at a l l ? Ia i t even always an advantage to replace an i n d i s t i n c t picture by a sharp one? Isn't the i n d i s t i n c t one often exactly what we need? (p.34). The Relation between the Concepts of Love and Commitment A prototype analysis of love and commitment can also aerve to elucidate how the layperaon views the r e l a t i o n between theae concepts. Rosenblatt (1977) l i s t s "Relationship of committment to love, marital s a t i s f a c t i o n , and other such measures of heterosexual r e l a t i o n s h i p " as a topic urgently in need of research attention. Again, the l i t e r a t u r e o f f e r s a wide range of views on the r e l a t i o n between these two concepts. At one end of the continuum. Money (1981) comes close to equating the two when he defines love as "the personal experience of and manifest expression of being attached or bonded to another person"(p.218). In a multidimensional sc a l i n g analysis of types of heterosexual relationships, Forgas and Dobosz (1980) found love and commitment to be one of three basic dimensions underlying various heterosexual r e l a t i o n s h i p s . D e s i r a b i l i t y and sexuality were the other two. The love and commitment dimension Included r e l a t i o n s h i p s such as f l i r t i n g and one-night sexual encounters at the negative end, while marriage (a rel a t i o n s h i p considered high in both love and commitment) anchored the other end. Thus, Forgas and Dobosz, too, see love and commitment aa highly a i m i l a r , i f not i d e n t i c a l , concepta. 2 6 Kelley (1983) takes exception to the r e s u l t that love and commitment appear in combination as one of the dimensions that discriminates between relationships. He points out that the relationships considered in th e i r study precluded making a d i s t i n c t i o n between love and commitment. For instance, there were no examples of long term rel a t i o n s h i p s which might have involved love but lacked the s t a b i l i t y of commitment and therefore ended. Conversely, t h e i r l i s t of rel a t i o n s h i p types did not contain examples of relationships which endured without po s i t i v e a f f e c t , such as a longlaating marriage that remains committed despite the absence of love. After an i n c i s i v e review and analysis of the love and commitment l i t e r a t u r e , Kelley suggests that these concepts are p a r t i a l l y independent, but largely overlapping. In f a c t , more than 25 years ago, Thibaut and Kelley (1959) argued f o r the p a r t i a l independence of these concepts: the in d i v i d u a l may be greatly dependent on the dyad without i t s being a t t r a c t i v e to him to a commensurate degree--without his being s a t i s f i e d with the r e l a t i o n s h i p . In other words, a member's dependency on the group [dyad] i s not necessarily highly correlated with his a t t r a c t i o n to the group, hi s "morale" or s a t i s f a c t i o n from belonging to i t (p.23). Berscheid and Walster (1978) agree with Thibaut and Kelley's p o s i t i o n that a t t r a c t i o n and association are not synonomous. They state t h a t , " t h i s i s why the extent to which one spends time 27 with another i a an imperfect measure of interpersonal attraction"<p.25). Rusbult (1960a; 1980b) argues that an i n d i v i d u a l ' s commitment to maintaining a r e l a t i o n s h i p varies as a function of his/her s a t i s f a c t i o n with i t . However, because commitment may be produced by poor alternatives or large investments in addition to s a t i s f a c t i o n , she maintains that one could be d i s s a t i s f i e d with a relationship but s t i l l remain deeply committed to i t . Thus, l i k e Thibaut and Kelley, she thinks s a t s i f a c t i o n with a relationship (or p o s i t i v i t y of a f f e c t , a t t r a c t i o n , or love) and commitment to i t can be, but are not necessarily, strongly correlated. In an investigation of attachment and autonomy in lesbian relationships, Peplau, Cochran, Rook, and Padesky (1978) found that scores on a modified Rubin's Love Scale correlated .50 with scores on a dydadic attachment scale constructed by the authors. This r e s u l t i s c e r t a i n l y not incompatible with the view that love and commitment are related, but not i d e n t i c a l . Thus we have encountered the point of view that love and commitment are e s s e n t i a l l y the same thing, followed by a consideration of the view that these concepts are moderately correlated or largely independent. The other anchor of t h i s continuum i s the view that love and commitment are orthogonal. Rosenblatt comments, "In my current thinking, committment i s d i f f e r e n t from and perhaps even independent of love, a t t r a c t i o n , intimacy, the quality of communication in a r e l a t i o n s h i p , and marital satisfaction"(1977, p.75). Solomon (1981) emphatically 28 declares that: Love l a not a "commitment", has nothing to do with commitment, indeed i s the very antitheaia of commit-ment, aa that term i a uaed ao much today. Love i a an emotion; a commitment i a a promiae (whether to oneself or someone else) to do something--or to con-tinue to do something--whatever one's f e e l i n g a . If you're i n love, you don't need to make a commitment; i f you need a commitment i t haa nothing to do with love ( p . x x x i i i ) . Recently, Sternberg (1986) proposed a new theory of love in which commitment i a a component of love, along with intimacy and paasion. Sternberg aeea hia deciaion/commitment component aa r e f e r r i n g to the i n i t i a l deciaion that one lovea aomeone else aa well aa the long-term commitment to maintain that love. The intimacy component conaiats of feelinga that engender the experience of warmth i n a relat i o n s h i p , which includes fe e l i n g s of closeness, connectedness, and bondedness. The passion component refe r s to drivea that lead to romance, phyaical a t t r a c t i o n , and aexual a c t i v i t y . Theae three componenta form the vertic e s of hia triang u l a r theory of love. The four viewa of the relationahip between the concepta of love and commitment can be v i s u a l l y depicted aa Venn diagrams (See Figure 1). A prototype approach, which i a concerned with the everyday uae of natural language concepta, can ahed l i g h t on theae hypotheaea on the r e l a t i o n between the concepta of love and commitment. I f the everyday person views theae concepta as 2 9 p r a c t i c a l l y i d e n t i c a l , they should share v i r t u a l l y the same set of a t t r i b u t e s . If they are seen as completely independent, they should have no att r i b u t e s in common. In order for these concepts to be considered largely overlapping, one would expect them to share a large number of features, but each concept would also possess some unique features. Further, i f these concepts are considered p a r t i a l l y independent, one would expect that they would share some, i f not a considerable number of, central a t t r i b u t e s . F i n a l l y , i f commitment i s a component of love, then the features l i s t e d for commitment should be a subset of those l i s t e d for love. However, love should also possess other, additional features. Overvi ew of the Present Study To recapitulate, the lack of agreement concerning d e f i n i t i o n s for love and commitment suggests that these concepts might be pr o t o t y p i c a l l y organized rather than definable i n the c l a s s i c a l sense. Moreover, i t i s anticipated that a prototype analysis of these concepts can answer another important question, namely, "How do people view the r e l a t i o n between these concepts?". Thus, the f i r s t part of t h i s thesis consists of a set of exploratory studies to t e s t the f e a s i b i l i t y of viewing love and commitment as p r o t o t y p i c a l l y organized concepts. One of the merits of the Roschian approach i s that through her research with natural language categories, she has provided a framework that can be applied to new areas. Rosch does not s p e l l out s p e c i f i c hypotheses, but rather o f f e r s a general approach that 30 must be s p e c i f i e d through empirical means in any p a r t i c u l a r domain. The exploratory nature of t h i s research must, therefore, be emphasized. Two kinds of studies w i l l be conducted i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The f i r s t set w i l l be concerned with the prototype structure of the concepts of love and commitment. In other words, i t i a expected that certain a t t r i b u t e s w i l l be more central to the concept than w i l l others, and that the degree of c e n t r a l i t y w i l l a f f e c t performance i n a variety of tasks. In Study One, subjects w i l l be asked to l i s t features of love and/or commitment. In Study Two, another group of subjects w i l l rate the features according to degree of c e n t r a l i t y . In Study Three i t i s expected that central a t t r i b u t e s w i l l be more s a l i e n t i n memory than w i l l peripheral a t t r i b u t e s . In Study Four, i t i s anticipated that c e n t r a l i t y e f f e c t s w i l l be evident in natural language use. S p e c i f i c a l l y , i t i s predicted that i t w i l l be considered appropriate to preface peripheral, but not ce n t r a l , features with hedges l i k e "sort of". It i a from the convergence of several measures that the prototype structure of a concept i s demonstrated. If theae measures converge, the case that love and commitment are prototype concepts can be made with greater confidence. The second set of studies w i l l examine whether or not the central a t t r i b u t e s of love and commitment play a central r o l e in the layperson's conception of interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p s . In other words, are central a t t r i b u t e s more important than peripheral a t t r i b u t e s i n verbal reports of the factors 31 associated with both increases and decreases in relationship closeness? In Study Five, i t i s predicted that central a t t r i b u t e s w i l l be seen as more applicable to the rela t i o n s h i p as i t becomes more loving or more committed, whereas the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of peripheral attributes w i l l not vary systematically as a function of the degree of love or commitment in the r e l a t i o n s h i p . F i n a l l y , Study Six examines the impact of vi o l a t i o n s of central and peripheral features of love and commitment. It i s expected that v i o l a t i o n s of central features w i l l be perceived as having a more devastating consequence on a rela t i o n s h i p than w i l l a v i o l a t i o n of peripheral features. Subjects in these studies w i l l be university undergraduates. This group was targeted f o r study because according to Erikson (1963), the formation of intimate relationships i s the central developmental task during t h i s phase of the li f e s p a n . Thus the concepts of love and commitment are presumably s a l i e n t for these students. Consistent with the Roachian t r a d i t i o n , they are referred to as "laypersons" in the sense that they are non-experts in the s c i e n t i f i c study of love and commitment. 3 2 PROTOTYPE STRUCTURE OF THE CONCEPTS OF LOVE AND COMMITMENT As was mentioned in the introduction, prototypes can be described by the sets of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s or a t t r i b u t e s constituting them. The description of a prototype, then, corresponds to a kind of flagging of central a t t r i b u t e s . This flagging d i f f e r s from the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of c r i t e r i a l features, however, in that instances of the concept are not expected to share a l l features i d e n t i f i e d in the prototype. For example, Horowitz et a l . (1982) varied the number of prototypic features included in a description of a lonely person. They found that the most common adjective chosen by subjects to describe t h i s hypothetical person was "lonely". Thus, subjects did not need a l l the features i d e n t i f i e d in the prototype to c o r r e c t l y c l a s s i f y the hypothetical person as being lonely. However, the more prototypic features of loneliness the descriptions contained, the greater the p r o b a b i l i t y that the person was i d e n t i f i e d as such. The purpose of the f i r s t phase of t h i s project was to explicate the domains of love and commitment beginning with a prototype a t t r i b u t e generation procedure. Thus, the f i r s t study involved e l i c i t i n g l i s t s of features or attributes of these concepts. This preliminary study was essential as a foundation for subsequent phases of the research program and provides inte r e s t i n g d e s c r i p t i v e information of value in and of i t s e l f . Study One: Free L i s t i n g of Features of Love and Commitment In deciding exactly how to e l i c i t the features of the 3 3 concepts of love and commitment, several methodological cum conceptual issues were considered. In a recent study of prototypes of members of d i f f e r e n t occupations, Dahlgren (1985) found that subjects l i s t e d d i f f e r e n t features depending on the inst r u c t i o n s they were given. When asked to l i s t " c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s common to and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s common of" hospital employees, subjects gave more attributes that Dahlgren c l a s s i f i e d as "functional" (types of the concepts, e.g., "nurse"). Asking subjects to define the terms yielded more internal a t t r i b u t e s l i k e personality t r a i t s or educational l e v e l , which she c l a s s i f i e d as " i n t e r n a l " (e.g., "medical t r a i n i n g " ) . F i n a l l y , asking for "ways of recognizing" category members produced more "perceptual" attributes (external, observable c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , e.g., "wears white"). While the s p e c i f i c s of Dahlgren's re s u l t s (e.g., that subjects can be led into generating perceptual features) may not be relevant to concepts l i k e love and commitment, the general finding that d i f f e r e n t instructions may e l i c i t d i f f e r e n t responses can not be e a s i l y dismissed. In t h i s study, i t was thought that two potential sources of bias might be (a) whether subjects generated features for only one or both concepts, and (b) whether the kind of example provided in the instructions as a model for t h e i r responses might e l i c i t d i f f e r e n t kinds of features. Subjects were asked to generate the attr i b u t e s of either love or commitment, or both love and commitment. Asking respondents to generate attributes for both concepts i s 3 4 obviously more economical. More importantly, presenting both concepts provides the subject with a clearer frame of reference, perhaps i m p l i c i t l y suggesting a comparison of these two concepts. Further, in t h i s condition i t was possible to ask subjects to make e x p l i c i t comparisons between the two concepts. This was seen as a valuable source of information, p a r t i c u l a r l y at the p i l o t stage. The rationale for the love or commitment condition was that i f subjects were asked to respond to both love and commitment, i t might preclude them from l i s t i n g love as an a t t r i b u t e of commitment (and vice-versa). It i s equally plausible that just the opposite might occur--seeing commitment on the questionnaire might serve as a prompt to include i t as an a t t r i b u t e of love (and vice-versa). Asking subjects to generate at t r i b u t e s of either love or commitment bypasses these potential problems. By removing the cue value of the other concept, i t was possible to discover whether love would be l i s t e d spontaneously as an at t r i b u t e of commitment, or commitment l i s t e d as an a t t r i b u t e of love. To ensure the features obtained were not dependent on the s p e c i f i c example used, subjects were also given one of two examples in t h e i r questionnaires--terror or extraversion. The terror example was chosen because there was some precedent for using i t (see Fehr & Russell, 1 9 8 4 ) . Of greater s i g n i f i c a n c e i s the fact that t h i s example seems to represent more of a " s c r i p t " rather than a s t r i c t l i s t i n g of a t t r i b u t e s . Antecedents, physiological, cognitive, and behavioral components, and 3 5 consequences are included. In other words, the terror example t e l l s a story: --possible danger occurs--may be re a l l i k e a bear; may be imaginary l i k e a ghost --attention i s focused on the threat --heart beats quickly --eyes open wider --eyebrows l i f t --palms and soles sweat --thoughts race through the person's mind --unpleasant sensations are experienced --the person runs as fas t as s/he can --hands tremble - - r e l i e f i s experienced after a few minutes The extraversion example was chosen because i t was amenable to being presented as a l i s t of a t t r i b u t e s , rather than in a s c r i p t or s t o r y - l i k e form. Further, i t seemed to avoid a potential problem inherent in the t e r r o r example, namely that terror might be more clos e l y related to love than to commitment (because they presumably share the same superordinate--emotion), thereby se t t i n g up a frame of reference for love but not for commitment. The concept of extraversion would not appear to share a superordinate with either love or commitment. Thus, i n l i g h t of these considerations, several versions of the questionnaire were ultimately constructed. They varied in terms of which concept or concepts were presented and the type of example given (see Appendix A). The goal of t h i s 36 multiqueationnaire approach waa to get a robust set of features, and to also c o l l e c t data on whether the kinds of features generated were questionnaire-specific. Method Subiecta Subjects in t h i a study were 141 atudenta enrolled in a Developmental Paychology and a Social Psychology claaa at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. The sample was comprised of 103 females and 37 males (one subject did not indicate gender), whose mean age waa 22.39 years. The modal age waa 21 yeara, with a range of 19 to 47 yeara of age. Pa r t i c i p a t i o n in the atudy waa voluntary. Procedure The basic atem of the queationnaire for the love and commitment group waa adapted from Fehr and Russell (1984): Love and commitment are members of a large class of global concepts that researchers have found useful in characterizing interpersonal relationships. This i s a simple study to f i n d out the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and a t t r i -butes of these two concepts. For example, i f you were asked to l i s t the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the concept extraversion [ t e r r o r ] . you might write: - - l i v e l i n e s s --vivaciousness - - s o c i a b i l i t y --high a c t i v i t y l e v e l - - l o t s of energy --eagerness --irapulsivity --not af r a i d to take a dare - - f r i e n d l i n e s s --can be domineering 3 7 --outgoingness --exuberance --boldness --talkativeness --enthusiasm --joking around --self-confidence When thinking about love or commitment, you might ask yourself: what manifestations are there of i t ? what thoughts do you have about i t ? how do you show i t ? in what circumstances are you apt to be aware of i t ? It might help to imagine you're explaining the word love or commitment to a foreigner or to someone who has never experienced i t . So include the obvious. T e l l how i t comes about and what hap-pens a f t e r . But emphasize a description of how one f e e l s and acts. Try not just to free associate. If "love" makes you think of your granny Smith, don't write "Granny Smith". We're interested in what i s common to instan-ces of love and commitment. On the next page, subjects were instructed to l i s t as many features of the concept as came to mind, but not to take more than about three minutes to complete the task. The order of love and commitment was counterbalanced across subjects. On the l a s t page of the questionnaire, subjects were asked to "think about what love and commitment mean in r e l a t i o n to one another. In what ways are they similar? In what ways are they different? Take a few minutes to write down whatever thoughts come to 38 mind." In the love or commitment condition, the questionnaire referred only to the target concept. In the commitment condition, when cautioning against free association, the Granny Smith example was replaced with, " I f commitment makes you think of your partner, don't write your partner's name...". The following number of subjects responded to each version of the questionnaire: Love and Commitment (Extraversion Example) N = 20; Love and Commitment (Terror Example) N=24; Love (Extraversion Example) N=29; Love (Terror Example) N=23; Commitment (Extraversion Example) N=20; Commitment (Terror Example) N=25. This yielded 185 protocols i n all- - 9 6 f o r love and 89 for commmitment. Results F i r s t , the ef f e c t s of type of example and eff e c t s of l i s t i n g features f o r one or both concepts were assessed. Next, a f i n a l l i s t of features for each concept was derived. Terror vs Extraversion Example In order to discover whether the terror example e l i c i t e d a more s c r i p t - l i k e description compared to the s t r i c t a t t r i b u t e - l i s t presented in the extraversion example, the protocols were scored by two judges (graduate students in psychology) blind to the example the subject received. Each questionnaire was rated on a scale of 1 to 7, where l = d e f i n i t e l y a set of attributes and 7=definitely a s c r i p t (story). This 3 9 analysis was performed fo r the love and commitment protocols separately. To assess the degree of inter-rater r e l i a b i l i t y , the scores of the two raters were correlated, r=.86. A high c o r r e l a t i o n indicates that the raters exhibited a high amount of agreement on whether the protocols appeared s c r i p t - l i k e or l i k e a l i s t of a t t r i b u t e s . A high c o r r e l a t i o n would also be obtained i f one rater consistently favored one end of the rating scale (e.g., consistently saw the protocols as more s c r i p t - l i k e ) . The mean rating of each judge therefore was computed: the mean rating for judge 1 was 5.368 (s.d.=1.337); mean rating f o r judge 2 was 5.222 (a.d.=1.47). Given the comparability of the means and the v a r i a b i l i t y around the means, one can assume that both judges were using the scale in the same way. In order to determine whether or not type of example used had an e f f e c t , the ratings of the two judges were averaged, and entered into a 2X2X2 analysis of variance in which the factors were type of example (terror/extraversion) by type of concept (love/commitment) by type of i n s t r u c t i o n (love or commitment/love and commitment). There were no s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t s and no s i g n i f i c a n t interactions ( a l l F's <2.51, p_'s >.10; see Appendix B) . Therefore the terror and extraversion questionnaires were combined for further analyses. Transcribing and Judging Responses The procedure for transcribing and judging the subjects' protocols occurred f o r the love and commitment attributes 4 0 separately. For each concept, the experimenter transcribed a l l words and phrases generated by the respondents. The responses were transcribed verbatim, or with minimal change ( i . e . , s p e l l i n g , grammar, etc.) i f necessary to c l a r i f y them. The responses were then presented to a panel of three judges ( a l l were graduate students in psychology, two had received extensive experience in t h i s type of task when serving as judges for Holliday (1983)). F i r s t , they screened the responses for the presence of attr i b u t e s or features of the concept in question. Statements r e f e r r i n g to types of love or commitment, rather than features of the concepts were excluded, as were references to the superordinate category to which the concept belonged. Such statements t y p i c a l l y appeared as a kind of opening statement. For example, a respondent who mentioned types, did so in the following way: Love--think of my boyfriend, and family, and close f r i e n d s . Common to a l l : - - i s a warmth f e l t towards a l l --caring and empathy about them --willingness to help --happiness on seeing them unexpectedly, look f o r -ward to times together --excited, "happy f e e l i n g " (S# 6) Or as another respondent wrote: ...one can f e e l commitment toward a cause, occu-pation, person, etc. Commitment i s : --the devotion one expresses toward another person 41 --commitment can be a manifestation of love (S# 105). Some respondents included a possible superordinate of the concept as part of t h e i r response. For example, one respondent wrote: Love i s a f e e l i n g which one person acquires f o r  another person i n which both parties end up f e e l -ing content, f u l f i l l e d , and happy. It i a a sense of sharing, caring, and generally a f e e l i n g of peace with oneself through in t e r a c t i o n with the other peraon <S# 32, emphaaia added). S i m i l a r l y , aomeone elae wrote: Commitment i a part of a special r e l a t i o n s h i p . To me i t meana a apecial dedication to aomeone and putting your f u l l attention and heart into some-thing or someone <S# 133, emphasis added). Superordinates were included in 19 of the 96 love protocols and i n 2 of the 89 commitment protocols. Of the 96 love protocols, 15 included a reference to types of love (note that "friendship" waa included aa a feature of love whenever i t waa l i a t e d aa an a t t r i b u t e aa oppoaed to appearing embedded in a l i s t of typea of love), while of the 89 commitment protocols, 12 contained a reference to typea of commitment. Aa noted previoualy, theae were eliminated from further uae. Extracting L i n g u i s t i c Units Having culled the protocols of types and superordinates, the 42 next phase involved the actual coding of the features. The coding procedure used was adapted from Rosenberg and Jones (1972) and Rosenberg and Sedlak (1972). The f i r s t stage of t h e i r detailed editing process involves the extraction of l i n g u i s t i c units. Honolexemic types such as caring, sharing, and t r u s t , were readily i d e n t i f i e d . Where a subject used a phrase, however, a judgment was necessary as to whether the p a r t i c u l a r phrase referred to a single feature, or could, i n f a c t , be divided into two or more l i n g u i s t i c units ( i . e . , a t t r i b u t e s ) . Phrases which were coded as single units were those in which the a t t r i b u t e was simply preceded or followed by some modifier or modifying phrase: "deep caring", "strong caring", "complete t r u s t " , "intense l i k i n g " , and so on. Phrases which were coded as more than one l i n g u i s t i c unit were those i n which each subpart could stand alone as a separate a t t r i b u t e of the concept: "having  someone close to you that you care about", "compassion towards  another accompanied by the desire to s e l f - s a c r i f i c e i f  necessary". " f e e l i n g content and comfortable with someone". The t o t a l number of l i n g u i s t i c units extracted from the protocols was 654 f o r love and 436 f o r commitment. Each subject generated an average of 6.81 features for love, and 4.91 features for commitment. Grouping L i n g u i s t i c Units into Attribute Categories L i n g u i s t i c units which were judged as r e f e r r i n g to the same att r i b u t e were grouped into one a t t r i b u t e category i f they contained the same basic morpheme. The following categorization 4 3 rules were used: 1 . Descriptions which were d i f f e r e n t grammatical forma of the same worda were placed in a single a t t r i b u t e category (e.g., care and caring; being honest, honest, and honesty). 2. Descriptiona which were accompanied by modifiera l i k e : very, moat, extremely, completely, intense, quite, rather, f a i r l y , and so on were included in the same category aa the unmodified feature (e.g., " l o t a of energy" waa coded aa "energy"). 3 . Attributes which were modified with terms l i k e : at times, sometimes, s l i g h t l y , a b i t , tenda to be, a l i t t l e , and aomewhat were placed i n the aame attr i b u t e category as the unmodified description. For example, " i s sometimes scary" was included in the category "scary". 4 . Any a t t r i b u t e modifying terms l i k e " r e l a t i o n s h i p " , "person", "other", etc. was placed in the same category as the aingle-word a t t r i b u t e (e.g., " t r u s t the other person" was included with " t r u s t " ; "being supportive in the r e l a t i o n s h i p " was grouped with "supportiveness"; " s a c r i f i c e for the other" waa coded aa " s a c r i f i c e " ) . Exceptions to t h i s were attributes l i k e "concern for the other's well-being" and "put the other f i r s t " . The meaning of these att r i b u t e s was considered to be sub s t a n t i a l l y changed ( i f not rendered incomprehensible) by excluding references to "other". 5 . Words that were judged as i d e n t i c a l in meaning were combined. The attempt was to be conservative, but not to treat words/phrases that were redundant as separate a t t r i b u t e s . Thus 44 the f i n a l step consisted of collapsing across i d e n t i c a l terms. For example, "giving things up for the other" was included with " s a c r i f i c e " ; "seeing something through to the end" was c l a s s i f i e d as "perseverance"; "doing as you said you would", "being bound to your word", "you do what you say you are going to do" were a l l included in the category " l i v i n g up to your word". In cases l i k e the l a s t example, the category name which appeared with the greatest frequency was chosen. Words l i k e "concern", "caring" and "compassion" were considered not to be s u f f i c i e n t l y i d e n t i c a l to warrant combining; "giving and taking" and "giving" were kept separate; "hard work" and "takes e f f o r t " were treated i n d i v i d u a l l y ; "physical a t t r a c t i o n " , "sexual a t t r a c t i o n " and "sexual passion" were treated as d i f f e r e n t features. This grouping procedure yielded a f i n a l l i s t of 183 love a t t r i b u t e s . Of these, 115 responses were idiosyn c r a t i c ( i . e . , mentioned by only one subject). These were discarded, leaving a f i n a l l i s t of 68 love a t t r i b u t e s . The attributes appear in Table 1, along with the frequency with which each was generated. The f i n a l commitment l i s t consisted of 118 attributes, 78 of which were i d i o s y n c r a t i c . Table 1 shows the 40 nonidiosyncratic commitment attributes and the frequency with which each was generated. Love and commitment share 21 features. L i s t i n g Features of Love and Commitment vs Love or Commitment F i n a l l y , the number of subjects who l i s t e d love as an at t r i b u t e of commitment and commitment as an att r i b u t e of love 45 was t a l l i e d . The responses of subjects i n the love and commitment condition were compared with the responses of subjects who generated attributes for only one of these concepts. Six subjects who wrote only about love mentioned commitment, while S of the subjects who wrote about both concepts mentioned commitment when l i s t i n g features of love. Nine subjects mentioned love as a feature of commitment when writing only about love, the same number mentioned love when writing about both concepts. These frequencies were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t , X x(l)=.16, p_ >.10. Thus, whether or not the name of the other concept was e x p l i c i t l y mentioned did not prompt or i n h i b i t these subjects from mentioning love as a feature of commitment and vice-versa. Discussion F i r s t , the finding that the attributes generated were robust across type of example i s encouraging, given the open-ended format employed i n feature generation tasks of t h i s nature. The fa c t that whether subjects l i s t e d features of one or both concepts did not have a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on how often the concept was l i s t e d as an attribute of the other i s also a welcome fi n d i n g . The transcribing and judging process yielded a f i n a l l i s t of 68 nonidiosyncratic love a t t r i b u t e s and 40 commitment at t r i b u t e s , which i s comparable in number to those reported by Holliday (1983). His f i n a l l i s t of a t t r i b u t e s (generated by 150 respondents for wisdom and by 50 respondents for the other categories) ranged from 54 for a perceptive person, 58 for a shrewd person, 60 for an i n t e l l i g e n t person, 70 4 6 for a s p i r i t u a l person, to 79 for a wise person. (There were 182 idi o s y n c r a t i c responses for wisdom, compared to 115 f o r love and 78 for commitment in t h i s study). The number of at t r i b u t e s gleaned i n t h i s study are also comparable to those reported by Dahlgren (1985). Subjects generated attributes for 20 members of a p a r t i c u l a r occupation: worker, employer, p o l i t i c i a n , and professional. The number of attributes generated for the members of each of the four groups ranged from 39 to 79. According to the c l a s s i c a l view, concepts can be defined in terms of a necessary and s u f f i c i e n t set of c r i t e r i a l a t t r i b u t e s . What i s obvious from Table 1 i s that our respondents were unable to produce such a set of features. In f a c t , there i s no single feature mentioned by a l l of the subjects f o r either concept. There i s substantial v a r i a b i l i t y in the extent to which certa i n features come to mind, ranging from 43.75* of the respondents who mentioned "caring" as a feature of love, to only 2.08X mentioning "admiration". S i m i l a r l y , for commitment, 34.83* of the subjects mentioned "perseverance", while only 2.33X mentioned "contentment". In fa c t , except for the f i r s t four items in Table 1, the remaining items were mentioned by fewer than 20* of the respondents. Unfortunately, in studies using a comparable attribute-generation procedure, the frequency with which each a t t r i b u t e waa l i s t e d i s generally not reported (e.g., Dahlgren, 1985; Holliday, 1983). Schwartz and Shaver (1984) asked subjects to l i s t the features of various emotions, including love. While they did not report frequency of H a t i n g , they mentioned that only features which were l i s t e d by at least 47 20* of the respondente were retained. Thia yielded a f i n a l l i s t of 24 features f o r love--a much larger number than was l i s t e d by at least 20* of the subjects in t h i s study. However, Schwartz and Shaver used a much broader coding scheme when compiling t h e i r f i n a l l i s t of features. In t h e i r study, features were categorized according to whether they were cognitive, physiological, expressive, a f f e c t i v e , or behavioral. Features l i k e warmth, t r u s t , and security were coded as a single at t r i b u t e i n the co g n i t i v e / a f f e c t i v e category. In contrast, these features were treated as separate a t t r i b u t e s here. Thus, how stringent one's coding scheme i s probably a f f e c t s the per cent of subjects who are credited with having l i s t e d a pa r t i c u l a r feature. The r e l a t i v e l y low consensus in t h i s study underscores the f a c t that i f there i s a c l a s s i c a l d e f i n i t i o n for either the concept of love or the concept of commitment, these subjects were c e r t a i n l y unable to produce i t . The Features of Love and Commitment What are the features that came to mind for these men and women when asked to write about these concepts? For ease of description, the features of love and commitment w i l l be treated as c l u s t e r s or themes which characterized the responses. Not sur p r i s i n g l y , f o r love, one large " c l u s t e r " consists of features that are p o s i t i v e i n a f f e c t i v e tone. Thus, subjects write about feelings of happiness, warmth, caring, contentment, a f f e c t i o n , intimacy, euphoria, and so on. Interestingly, there are also features i n the love prototype that are negative i n hedonic 48 tone--more than one respondent mentioned features l i k e "scary" and "uncertainty". Social psychologists have touched upon t h i s theme of a "dark side" of love when describing romantic or passionate love. Berscheid and Fei (1977) noted that while i t seems reasonable that f a l l i n g i n love should be a consistently pleasant experience, there i s an undercurrent of negative emotion which seems to accompany the growth of love. They document f e e l i n g s of dependency (also mentioned by our subjects) and i n s e c u r i t y experienced by men and women involved in romantic r e l a t i o n s h i p s . H a t f i e l d and Walater (1978) describe the feeli n g s of ambivalence, anxiety, and jealousy that are a frequent concomitant of passionate love. The prototype of love also includes behaviors such aa laughing, gazing at the other, doing things for the other, and helping. Featurea l i k e b u t t e r f l i e s in stomach, an increase in heartrate, and sexual passion are part of the physiological aapect of love. There are also features which indicate a perception that the relat i o n s h i p w i l l endure: commitment, security, longlasting, l o y a l t y , a p o s i t i v e outlook, and so on. Another theme in these featurea i s a lack of i n h i b i t i o n when one i s with the loved one: f e e l free to talk about anything, f e e l good about yourself, f e e l relaxed with the other, openneaa, and honesty are consistent with t h i s theme. This i s a re c i p r o c a l proceaa in that one also accepts the other as a/he i s . The feature "unconditional" also r e f l e c t s t h i s notion. The features of love also include cognitive a c t i v i t i e s , such aa ruminating (e.g., "think about the other a l l the time"), and 49 po s i t i v e d i s t o r t i o n (e.g., "see only other's good q u a l i t i e s " ) . There i s also an " i n t e l l e c t u a l " aide to love in which the other i s respected, admired, and the partners have a l o t in common. Aspects of love which could be termed "motivational" include: "want to be with the other", and "want best for other". The l a t t e r also alludes to a theme that could be described as altruism. Other a l t r u i s t i c features are: s a c r i f i c e , put other f i r s t , giving, concern for other's well-being. F i n a l l y , there i s a cl u s t e r of features that could be loosely described as s o c i a l support: aupportiveneas, sharing, understanding, empathy, compassion, protectiveness, and comfort. The features of commitment have a d i f f e r e n t flavour from the features of love. Whereas in the love prototype, the largest c l u s t e r appears to refer to the experience of p o s i t i v e a f f e c t , the commitment prototype i s characterized by a theme of making a decision, and then following through on i t . Features l i k e perseverance, l i v i n g up to your word, f a i t h f u l n e s s , devotion, l o y a l t y , r e l i a b l e , r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , are consistent with t h i s idea. The behavioral features of commitment also r e f l e c t t h i s theme: give your best e f f o r t , hard work, work toward common goals, etc. Like love, there i s a cognitive aspect to commitment that i s " i r r a t i o n a l " - - " t h i n k about the other a l l the time". However, for commitment, the predominant theme i s one of levelheadedness and r a t i o n a l i t y . Thus the relat i o n s h i p i s seen as a conscious decision, a promise, a mutual agreement, a high p r i o r i t y , and so on. The positively-toned a f f e c t i v e features in commitment are 50 muted compared to the intensity of some of the emotions associated with love. Respondents mention fee l i n g s of contentment, a f f e c t i o n , caring, l i k i n g , and so on. The one negatively-valenced feature i s " f e e l trapped", and possibly "obligation". Another group of features refer to the giving of s o c i a l support: supportiveness, "being there" for the other i n good and bad times, sharing, working out problems, and so f o r t h . There i s also the theme of an enduring relationship that was present in the love prototype, e.g., longlasting, and attachment. Consistent with love, the commitment prototype also r e f e r s to altruism: s a c r i f i c e , giving, put the other f i r s t . Unlike love, t h i s apparent s e l f l e s s n e s s i s tempered by considerations of equity, namely, "giving and taking". Relation between the Concepts of Love and Commitment Subjects who were asked to l i s t features for both concepts were also asked to indicate any thoughts they had on the r e l a t i o n between love and commitment. While these data were not subjected to any formal coding scheme or content analysis, a few r e f l e c t i o n s are in order. F i r s t , some subjects chose to make a statement about whether the concepts necessarily co-occur. Twenty-two of the 41 respondents who completed t h i s part of the questionnaire indicated that love and commitment occur together. These statements took a variety of forma. One view was that "you can't have one without the other". Some f e l t that love was a prerequisite for commitment, or that love makes commitment 51 easier. As one respondent wrote, "Love takes the drudgery out of commitment". Others f e l t that commitment waa required for love to survive in a relationship. The opposite side of the coin was also endoraed--four subjects indicated that commitment and love can exiat without each other. Five subjects indicated that love can exiat without commitment, which preaumably implies that the opposite i a not true ( i . e . , that commitment can exi s t without love). A few aubjecta atated t h i a implication e x p l i c i t l y . Converaely, seven subjects mentioned that one can have commitment without love. To sum up, i t seemed that the majority of subjects f e l t that these concepts were clo s e l y related, although some respondents f e l t that they could also occur independently. Within the l a t t e r group, there was also the view that even though you can have one without the other, both "should" occur in a relationahip, or that in "true" love, both are present. Aa one subject wrote: You can have commitment without love, and you can experience love without commitment. Love without commitment i s baaed upon feelinga and i a up and down. Commitment without love i s dry and empty. With a balance of love and commitment, a person can have an exciting r e l a t i o n s h i p that makes i t through the bad times (S#19). Rather than e x p l i c i t l y state the re l a t i o n s h i p between love and commitment, some subjects d i f f e r e n t i a t e d the concepts along an underlying dimension(s). Four dimensions that were e a s i l y 52 extracted from these data were whether love or commitment i s : 1. located in the Individual vs. the dyad; 2. an emotion vs. cognition/behavior;3. transient vs. permanent; and 4. characterized by one vs. multiple targets. Thus, some subjects mentioned that whereas love i s something one f e e l s within oneself, commitment i s two-sided. It involves a mutual agreement between two people. Love was also described as being a f f e c t i v e (e.g., a f e e l i n g or emotion) whereas commitment was more often described as a cognitive decision or a behavioral act. Love was frequently described as a more transient experience than commitment. F i n a l l y , more than one subject mentioned that while individuals can only " r e a l l y " love one person, they can be committed to multiple causes. The data from the feature l i s t i n g task from both types of questionnaires provide additional information on the relationship between these two concepts. For example, a certain percentage of subjects did mention love as a feature of commitment (and vice-versa), which suggests that these concepts are not completely independent, as Solomon supposed. Moreover, these concepts share certain features. On the other hand, the fact that the majority of subjects did not spontaneously mention love for commitment, and commitment for love, speaks against the notion that the concepts are synonymous. Further, the finding that some, but not a l l , features are shared suggests that the concepts are not i d e n t i c a l as Money and Fogas and Dobosz imply. While commitment shares about half of i t s features with love (love shares just less than a t h i r d of i t s features with 53 commitment.), commitment a t i l l possesaea 19 unique featurea. (See Figure 2.) Sternberg auggests that commitment i a a component of love. If so, one would expect that more aubjecta would l i a t commitment when asked to generate features of love, than vice-versa. Further, commitment does not share a l l of i t s features with love, while love also possesses unique featurea. Kelley's view, that love and commitment are overlapping concepts best seems to describe the view expressed by subjects in t h i s atudy. Obviously love i a a bigger concept than commitment, and i t aubaumes a aubatantial proportion of commitment, but not the whole thing. What t h i a atudy does not t e l l us i s the degree of interdependence and interconnectedness laypersons perceive between these concepts. It i s possible that even though laypersons believe the concepts overlap, they could s t i l l see love and commitment as largely independent. This would be the case i f the unique features were considered most central to each concept, while the shared featurea were seen aa peripheral. If the concepts are seen as moderately independent, one would expect no difference between c e n t r a l i t y ratings of shared and unique featurea. F i n a l l y , i f laypersons conceptualize love and commitment as only p a r t i a l l y independent, then the unique features should be seen as less central to the concept while the overlapping features should be considered c e n t r a l . Thus, t h i s i s e s s e n t i a l l y the same issue as that raised by Kelley. The answer provided by the prototype approach, however, ia in terma of the laypersons' perceptions of the relationship 54 between love and commitment. Kelley waa concerned with the actual r e l a t i o n s h i p between love and commitment in people's close r e l a t i o n s h i p s . He believed they are p a r t i a l l y independent. One wonders: Do lay people view t h i s the same way? An attempt to answer t h i s question i s made in the next study. It also looks at whether frequently mentioned at t r i b u t e s are also considered most central to the concepts. Study 2: Cen t r a l i t y Ratings of the Features of Love and Commitment One of the major d i s t i n c t i o n s between the c l a s s i c a l view of concepts and the prototype view concerns prototype structure. As mentioned e a r l i e r , according to the prototype view, categories have an in t e r n a l structure. That i s , categories are composed of a core meaning and members of the category may be considered d i f f e r e n t i a l l y representative of the meaning of the category term. Representativeness may be operationally defined by means of a subject's ratings of how good an example an item i s of i t s category. Rosch has obtained inter-subject consistency in such ratings. Individual subjects agree that some exemplars of a category are more representative than others, and d i f f e r e n t subjects choose the same examples as most representative of the category. For example, apples and oranges are consistently rated as better examples of f r u i t than are f i g s and r a i s i n s (Rosch, 1973) and happiness and sadness are better examples of emotion than are boredom and awe (Fehr & Russell, 1984). S i m i l a r l y , a t t r i b u t e s can be rated according to how central 55 or peripheral they are to a concept. For example, Holliday <1983) asked college age, middle-aged, and el d e r l y adults to rate a set of a t t r i b u t e s of the concept of wisdom. He found that features l i k e "have learned things from experience", and "good source of advice", were considered prototypical or central to the concept, while features l i k e "quiet", "conservative", and "happy" were seen aa nonprototyical or peripheral. Cantor and Mischel (1977) were interested in what features are central to certa i n personality prototypes. For extraversion, they found that attributes l i k e "exuberant" and "outgoing" were considered cent r a l , while features l i k e "energetic" and "impulsive" were only moderately relat e d . Attributes l i k e "neat" and "punctual" were seen as peripheral to the concept. The purpose of t h i s study was to discover which a t t r i b u t e s of love and commitment were considered central to each concept, and which were considered peripheral. In other words, the purpose of t h i s atudy waa to discover the prototype structure of the concepta of love and commitment. If these concepts were c l a s s i c a l l y defined, one would not expect subjects to aee some attri b u t e s as more central to the concepts than others, because a l l a t t r i b u t e s would be equally necessary in defining the concept. Gathering data on t h i s iaaue alao permits addressing the aforementioned question concerning people's conception of the r e l a t i o n between these concepts. Method Subiects Subjects i n t h i s study were 172 undergraduate students 56 enrolled in two s o c i a l psychology classes at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. Responses to questions concerning age and gender revealed that 111 females and 56 males participated in the study. The mean age of the sample (based on 165 responses) was 22.98, the mode was 21 years, and the range was 19 to 50 years of age. Materials Two versions of each questionnaire were constructed i n which the a t t r i b u t e s were presented in d i f f e r e n t orders. Also, there was some question as to whether 68 attributes might be a p r o h i b i t i v e l y large number of at t r i b u t e s to rank. Therefore, a t h i r d version which contained only half of the a t t r i b u t e s was constructed for love (see Appendix C). This condition also made the number of ratings per concept comparable (since subjects i n the commitment condition rated only 40 a t t r i b u t e s ) . Procedure Subjects received the following i n s t r u c t i o n s : The purpose of t h i s questionnaire i s to discover which features of LOVE [COMMITMENT] are most c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the concept and which features are least c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . In an e a r l i e r experiment, subjects were given the concept "LOVE" ["COMMITMENT"] and were asked to l i s t a l l the at t r i b u t e s or features they could think of in a few minutes. On the next page, you w i l l see the features that were l i s t e d . The f a c t that each of these attributes was l i s t e d by someone in our previous study indicates that each a t t r i -bute probably i s , to some degree, a part of LOVE [COMMITMENT!. Nevertheless, some fea-tures c l e a r l y seem more central to, or more important i n , love [commitment] than others. For example, i f given a l i s t of a t t r i -butes for the concept of INTELLIGENCE, fea-tures l i k e "having a high I.Q." or "getting straight A'a i n u n i v e r s i t y " are probably good features. A feature l i k e " a b i l i t y to solve problems" i s probably a moderately good feature. Featurea l i k e " f i n d i t easy to f i l l out income tax forms" or "good at t e l l i n g jokes" might be considered poorer features of i n t e l l i g e n c e . Note that while i t ' s possible that most i n t e l l i -gent people can t e l l jokes extremely well, t h i s feature probably i a not moat central when you t h i about what the concept of i n t e l l i g e n c e meana. For each of the featurea on the next page, w would l i k e you to think about what the concept of LOVE [COMMITMENT] meana, and aak yourself: "How central i a t h i a feature to love [commitment]?" Then rate how good or poor that feature i a using an 8 point scale where l=extremely poor feature of love [commitment], and 8=extremely good fea-ture of love [commitment]. Please try to use the 5d e n t i r e scale when making your ratings--we're i n t e r -ested i n discovering the r e l a t i v e importance of each of the features to the concept of love [commitment]. The commitment attributes were rated f o r c e n t r a l i t y by 76 subjects, while 96 subjects rated the love att r i b u t e s . Of the l a t t e r group, 52 rated a l l 68 a t t r i b u t e s , while 44 rated only 34 of the love attributes (which yielded 22 complete questionnaires). This resulted in a t o t a l of 74 complete love questionnaires. Results To assess whether the p a r t i c u l a r questionnaire used had an e f f e c t on subjects' ratings a one-way ANOVA was performed on the c e n t r a l i t y ratings of the love a t t r i b u t e s across the three types of questionnaires and a one-way ANOVA was run on the c e n t r a l i t y ratings of the commitment attributes on the two versions of the commitment questionnaire. There was no e f f e c t of type of questionnaire for either love or commitment (F's <1, p_'s >.10; see Appendix D). However, an analysis across attributes might not be s e n s i t i v e enough to detect order e f f e c t s (or as in the case of love, whether the number of a t t r i b u t e s rated makes a d i f f e r e n c e ) . Therefore, in order to examine t h i s issue more clo s e l y , an analysis of variance was performed on the mean ratings of c e r t a i n single a t t r i b u t e s across questionnaires. As can be seen i n Table 2, there were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between c e n t r a l i t y ratings for the features as a function of the form of questionnaire i n which they appeared. 59 In addition, to get some ind i c a t i o n of the r e l i a b i l i t y of c e n t r a l i t y ratings, the mean c e n t r a l i t y ratings for the features given by the two separate classes were correlated. This c o r r e l a t i o n was .93 f o r the love a t t r i b u t e s (.85 based on ranks) and .92 for the commitment at t r i b u t e s (.86 based on ranks). The data sets were combined for further analyses. Table 3 shows the mean c e n t r a l i t y r a t i n g for each of the love and commitment at t r i b u t e s . Because these featurea were intended for use in the remaining studies, i t waa necessary to decide which features should be considered c e n t r a l , and which should be regarded aa peripheral to each concept. For love, i t waa decided to conaider featurea with a mean c e n t r a l i t y r a t i n g of 6.0 and higher on the 8-point scale aa c e n t r a l , baaed on a median a p l i t of the c e n t r a l i t y ratinga. The remaining 34 itema were conaidered peripheral. For commitment, the 20 featurea with a mean c e n t r a l i t y rating of 5.75 or higher were conaidered c e n t r a l , while the remaining half were considered peripheral to the concept. While the s p l i t f or each concept i s higher than the midpoint of the scale, i t i s necessary to keep in mind that a l l the features were related, to some extent, to these concepta ( i . e . , they were a l l given by more than one subject in Study One). Therefore, one would not expect extremely low c e n t r a l i t y ratinga. In the Fehr and Russell (1984) atudy, mean pr o t o t y p i c a l i t y ratings ranged from 2.49 to 5.46 on a 6-point scale, and the cutoff point for an emotion to be considered prototypical was 4.55. It was expected that a t t r i b u t e s that are very central to a 60 concept would be more l i k e l y to come to mind in a free l i s t i n g task than would peripheral a t t r i b u t e s . Therefore, c e n t r a l i t y ratings were correlated with frequency of generation i n Study One. For love, the c o r r e l a t i o n between c e n t r a l i t y and frequency was .36 <p_ <.001> (.39 baaed on ranks); for commitment a co r r e l a t i o n of .52 (p_ <.001) (.67 baaed on ranks) was found. There was some reason to believe that males and females might d i f f e r i n terms of the features considered most important to love (see, for example, Peplau (1983)). Therefore, the men and women's c e n t r a l i t y ratings were correlated. These correlations were very high for love, r=.93 (.89 based on ranks), and for commitment, r_=.89 (.83 based on ranks). Thus in the remaining studies, the data for males and females were combined. To test whether love and commitment are p a r t i a l l y independent concepts, a 2X2 mixed analysis of variance was performed on the c e n t r a l i t y ratings, with concept (love/commitment) as the between-subjects factor and type of a t t r i b u t e (shared/unique) as the within-subjects f a c t o r . As discussed in Study One, i f love and commitment are only p a r t i a l l y independent concepts, one would expect the shared at t r i b u t e s to be more central to each concept than the unique a t t r i b u t e s . If the concepts are largely independent, unique attr i b u t e s should receive higher c e n t r a l i t y ratings than shared a t t r i b u t e s . F i n a l l y , i f love and commitment are p a r t i a l l y independent and larg e l y overlapping, one would expect the c e n t r a l i t y ratings of the shared a t t r i b u t e s for each concept 61 should be at least moderately, i f not highly, correlated. F i r s t , there was a main ef f e c t f o r concept, F<1, 148)=5.15, p_=.025, such that o v e r a l l , love attributes received s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher mean ratings than did commitment attr i b u t e s (mean for love 5.91; mean for commitment 5.65). Second, there was a main e f f e c t for type of a t t r i b u t e , F(1,148)=86.07, p_ <.001, such that o v e r a l l , shared a t t r i b u t e s received higher c e n t r a l i t y ratings than did unique a t t r i b u t e s (mean for shared attr i b u t e s 5.96; mean for unique a t t r i b u t e s 5.59). This e f f e c t waa tempered by a s i g n i f i c a n t concept by att r i b u t e interaction, F(l,148)=74.81, p_ <.001 (see Appendix D) . Simple e f f e c t s analyses revealed that for love, shared attributes received a s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher mean rating compared to unique at t r i b u t e s , F(l,73)=206.16, p_ <.001 (6.26 vs. 5.55). For commitment, the difference between c e n t r a l i t y ratings of shared and unique features waa nonsignificant, F <1, p_ > . 10 (5.66 vs. 5.63, resp e c t i v e l y ) . F i n a l l y , i t was predicted that the c e n t r a l i t y ratings of the shared features of love and commitment would be moderately to highly correlated. This correlation turned out to be quite high, r=.75 (based on ranks, .69). Discussion The f i r s t noteworthy feature of these data i s that subjects were, i n f a c t , able to rate the attr i b u t e s of love and commitment according to how central they were to the concept. Moreover, subjects agreed with one another on these ratings; the 62 ratings were stable across classes and questionnaire types. The mere f a c t that our respondents found t h i s a meaningful task lends credence to the hypothesis that love and commitment are p r o t o t y p i c a l l y organized rather than c l a s s i c a l l y defined. For a concept to be c l a s s i c a l l y defineable, each feature i s i n d i v i d u a l l y necessary--thus no one feature ahould be considered more central to the concept than others. Ce n t r a l i t y Ratings of the Features of Love and Commitment In terms of the actual c e n t r a l i t y ratings assigned to each concept, love attributes received higher ratings than did commitment at t r i b u t e s . It may be the case that the concept of love i s simply more s a l i e n t to the p a r t i c u l a r age group under study than i s the concept of commitment. In f a c t , there i s some evidence to suggest that love becomes less important across the li f e s p a n , while commitment becomes more important (e.g.. Reedy, Birren, & Scheie, 1981). However, some other factor l i k e s i z e of concept could also be operating here. For example, c e n t r a l i t y ratings f o r extraversion obtained by Cantor and Mischel (1977) are higher than those obtained for introversion. Like love, extraversion i s simply a bigger concept ( i . e . , has more features) than i s introversion. It may be that when the prototype of a concept includes a large number of features, the central ones become p a r t i c u l a r l y s a l i e n t . When there are a large number of features to keep in mind, the central ones might serve to "anchor" the concept and therefore assume greater importance. C e n t r a l i t y ratings turned out to be modestly correlated with 63 frequency of free l i s t i n g . Theae res u l t s are comparable to thoae obtained by other inveatigatora uaing a aimilar task. For example, Dahlgren obtained a c o r r e l a t i o n of .29 between frequency of free H a t i n g of featurea of peraona i n p a r t i c u l a r occupationa and p r o t o t y p i c a l i t y ratinga of theae featurea. While theae correlations were not aa high aa thoae obtained when subjects are asked to l i a t types of emotiona (e.g., Fehr and Russell (1984) reported a c o r r e l a t i o n of .80 between frequency of generation and p r o t o t y p i c a l i t y ratinga), they are nonetheless respectable in comparison with other attempts at c o r r e l a t i n g frequency of free l i s t i n g of features with c e n t r a l i t y ratings. It i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note which a t t r i b u t e s these college-aged respondents thought were most central to love and to commitment. For love, " t r u s t " emerged as the most central a t t r i b u t e , followed by "caring", "honesty", and "friendship". These re s u l t s are somewhat discrepant with those reported by Steck, Levitan, McLane, and Kelley (1982). These authors presented subjects with versions of a love scale purportedly f i l l e d out by someone experiencing romantic love, which d i f f e r e d in how much items pertaining to care, need, and t r u s t were endorsed. They reported that questionnaires i n which caring items were rated highest, followed by need, and then t r u s t were seen by t h e i r subjects as in d i c a t i v e of the greatest amount of love. In contrast, the r e s u l t s of the present study show tr u s t to be most cent r a l , followed by caring, while "need each other" i s r e l a t i v e l y peripheral. The differences i n theae findinga may be partly a ttributable to the fact that Steck et a l . ' a t r u s t 64 component was comprised primarily of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e items. If one considers the feature " f e e l free to talk about anything" as more akin to s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e than t r u s t , then the r e s u l t s become somewhat more comparable, because " f e e l free to ta l k about anything" was ranked as less central than caring. But, i t i s s t i l l considered more central than need. However, of greater relevance to the findings obtained here, i s the fact that Steck et a l . also asked t h e i r subjects to indicate how s i m i l a r each item was to t h e i r own conception of love. These r e s u l t s showed that care was most relevant, followed by t r u s t , and then need. If one treats t h e i r trust component as s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , the resu l t s become consistent with those reported here. How does the layperson's view of love, as uncovered here, map onto theories of love proposed by psychologists? Rubin (1973) sees love as consisting of three components: caring, attachment, and intimacy. Caring and intimacy are central to the layperson's view, while attachment i s seen as less c e n t r a l . Rubin also sees l i k i n g aa d i s t i n c t from love. He argues that there are two dimensions underlying l i k i n g : a f f e c t i o n and respect. Liking i s considered to be a central feature of love, as are i t s proposed underlying dimensions. Another issue of interest i s to what extent the layperson's view of love maps onto the companionate/passionate love d i s t i n c t i o n made by Ha t f i e l d and Walster (1978): Passionate love i s a wildly emotional state, a confusion of f e e l i n g s : tenderness and sexuality, e l a t i o n and pain, anxiety and r e l i e f , altruism 65 and jealousy. Companionate love, on the other hand. Is a lower-key emotion. It's f r i e n d l y a f f e c t i o n and deep attachment to someone (p.2). Indeed, these data include featurea that depict passionate love: "miss the other when apart", "physical a t t r a c t i o n " , "touching", "sexual passion", "think about the other a l l the time", "euphoria", "heartrate increases", "gazing at the other", "uncertainty", "scary", and so on. Theae data also include cert a i n features descriptive of companionate love: " t r u s t " , "caring", "respect", "friendship", " l o y a l t y " , and the l i k e . According to Brehm (1985), "Respect, admiration, and t r u s t are a l l major aspects of companionate love. Indeed, interpersonal t r u s t may be i t s single best defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c " (p.93). What i s surprising i s that not one of the features that describe passionate love appears aa a central feature of love--in f a c t theae are featurea that receive the lowest c e n t r a l i t y r a t i n g s . These data are inconsistent with the stereotype that college-aged students see love only i n romantic terms. However, these r e s u l t s are consiatent with Baum'e (1972) atudy of engaged couplea. When aaked to define love and to indicate i t s most important component, the reapondenta were much more l i k e l y to use companionate terma (aharing, underatanding, companionahip, mutual aupport and affection) than romantic or a l t r u i a t i c terma. With regard to the concept of commitment, featurea l i k e " l o y a l t y " , " r e a p o n a i b i l i t y " , " l i v e up to your word", and "faithfulneaa" were conaidered moat c e n t r a l . Featurea l i k e "contentment", "aecurity", "think about the other a l l the time", 66 and " f e e l trapped" were considered peripheral to the concept. Unfortunately, there has been v i r t u a l l y no research on the everyday person's conception of commitment, which precludes making comparisons between these findings and those of other studies. The p a r a l l e l s between laypersons' and s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s ' d e f i n i t i o n s of commitment are not p a r t i c u l a r l y s t r i k i n g . The everyday person does not d i f f e r e n t i a t e between commitment f r e e l y chosen by the in d i v i d u a l and commitment imposed on the individual by some external source (cf. Johnson's (1982) d i s t i n c t i o n between personal and st r u c t u r a l commitment; Hinde's (1979) d i s t i n c t i o n between endogenous and exogenous commitment). The other main themes in the s c i e n t i f i c l i t e r a t u r e are: the pledging of oneself to a l i n e of action. The features " l i v e up to your word", "a promise", and "conscious decision" are consonant with t h i s theme. Definitions of commitment as an intent to maintain a relationship are not r e a l l y represented in t h i s feature l i s t , nor are d e f i n i t i o n s which construe commitment as an unwillingness to consider an alternate exchange partner. Relation between Love and Commitment A comparison of the mean ratings of unique versus shared features revealed that shared att r i b u t e s received s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher c e n t r a l i t y ratings than unique a t t r i b u t e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r the concept of love. This r e s u l t suggests that laypersons' conceptualization of love and commitment complement Kelley'a hypothesis that these concepts are p a r t i a l l y independent. If the 67 unique features had received higher c e n t r a l i t y ratings, then one would be compelled to conclude that the layperson sees these concepts as largely, rather than p a r t i a l l y , independent, a f i n d i n g that would c o n f l i c t with Kelley's position. The f a c t that unique features of commitment "hold t h e i r own", that i s do not receive s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher c e n t r a l i t y ratings than shared a t t r i b u t e s , suggests that from the layperson's perspective, commitment i s not a component of love, even though i t shares a large number of i t s features with love. Study 3: Memory for the Features of Love and Commitment If the concepts of love and commitment have a prototype atructure, one would expect t h i s structure to a f f e c t performance in various s i t u a t i o n s . One such e f f e c t occurs i n memory recognition and r e c a l l tasks. In a recognition memory experiment, Cantor and Mischel (1977) presented subjects with descriptions of four f i c t i o n a l characters: an extravert, an i n t r o v e r t , and two controls (nonextraverts and nonintroverta). The character descriptions were composed of a t t r i b u t e s that had been pre-rated on t h e i r degree of relatedness to the concepts of introversion and extraversion. In creating the i n t r o v e r t and extravert characters, they used a t t r i b u t e s that were moderately related and unrelated to the concepts. For the control characters, attributes that were unrelated to either concept were preaented. Cantor and Mischel predicted that f o r a l l characters, subjects would be more confident that they had seen presented (versus nonpreaented) a t t r i b u t e s . 6a However, they also posited that when subjects obtained consistent information about extraverted or introverted characters, the appropriate t r a i t concept would be activated. Thereafter, the t r a i t concept should function as an organizing prototype for processing further information. Thus i t was also predicted that subjects would demonstrate a bias toward recognizing nonpresented but highly related features of the introvert and extravert characters, but not for the control characters. Their r e s u l t s supported both predictions. In a subsequent study. Cantor and Mischel<1979b) explored the e f f e c t s of p r o t o t y p i c a l i t y and personality on r e c a l l memory. They reasoned that i f people process information i n terma of relevant peraonality prototypea, then manipulating the c e n t r a l i t y of the at t r i b u t e s of the stimulus characters should systematically influence the ease of information processing. Consequently, the amount and nature of the information r e c a l l e d about these characters should be affected. In addition, they were interested in the ways i n which descriptions of t h e i r stimulus characters would be embellished i f subjects were asked to give t h e i r impressions of the character's personality. In t h i s study, subjects were presented with descriptions of three types of characters. Pure characters were described using only t r a i t s and behaviors that were prototypical of that personality type. Inconsistent characters were described by t r a i t s and behaviors of c o n f l i c t i n g personality types (e.g., extravert and i n t r o v e r t ) . F i n a l l y , mixed characters were described using t r a i t s and behaviors that 69 were prototypical of two d i f f e r e n t , but nonconflicting prototypes (e.g., extravert and good Samaritan). As expected, the most information was written and c o r r e c t l y r e c a l l e d about pure characters and least about inconsistent characters. The e f f e c t of character consistency was also evident in the elaboration and richness of the personality impressions. For example, s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater numbers of new (nonpresented) items were included in the impression of the pure characters, compared to the mixed and inconsistent characters. These new items were quite consistent with the character's o r i g i n a l l y presented a t t r i b u t e s . The purpose of t h i s study was to investigate both recognition and r e c a l l memory within a single study. Subjects were presented with either the love or the commitment attr i b u t e s . The rationale was that because the two concepts share a considerable number of features, i t would be confusing for subjects to be presented with the features of love and then have some of the same features appear again as a t t r i b u t e s of commitment. Stated d i f f e r e n t l y , looking at both concepts simultaneously would be equivalent to r e p l i c a t i n g the Cantor and Mischel (1979b) study, with only a mixed description condition. Unlike the Cantor and Mischel (1977) recognition study, subjects i n t h i s study were presented with 10 prototypical and 10 nonprototypical statementa. The rationale for predicting f a l s e recognition e f f e c t s for central items i s that the ac q u i s i t i o n items have presumably "activated" the prototype, r e s u l t i n g in an i n a b i l i t y to discriminate between very central 70 items that were and were not presented. Cantor and Mischel's a c q u i s i t i o n items were statements rated aa moderately related (mean rating of 2 to 2.5 on a 4-point acale for extraveraion; mean rating of 1.5 to 2 for introveraion) and unrelated (mean rating of leaa than 1.5) to the concepta. It i a unclear why Cantor and Mischel chose to activate a prototype without using prototypical items. Therefore, in t h i a atudy i t waa decided to operationalize activation of the prototype by preaenting subjects with 10 randomly aelected central itema and 10 randomly selected peripheral itema. It was expected that l i k e the Cantor and Mischel recognition study, subjects would v e r i d i c a l l y recognize both central and peripheral featurea that were preaented. However, a main e f f e c t for c e n t r a l i t y waa expected for falae recognition, auch that central featurea which were not preaented would be f a l a e l y recognized more often than peripheral featurea. The incluaion of r e c a l l memory waa exploratory. On one hand, r e c a l l reaulta might simply mirror recognition reaulta. On the other hand, i f aubjecta do not have the atimuli r i g h t in front of them (aa i n the caae of recognition memory) but have to re l y aolely on t h e i r memory, there might be a biaa toward r e c a l l i n g more central itema. The predictiona made for falae recognition e f f e c t s were also made for f a l s e r e c a l l . Method Subiecta Subjects in th i a atudy were 120 undergraduate students. 71 Sixty were in a Developmental Paychology c l a s s ; 60 were in a Social Psychology c l a s s . Half in each class were presented with love attributes; half were presented with commitment a t t r i b u t e s . Materiala The experimental materials consisted of three booklets with d i f f e r e n t colored covers to reduce the p r o b a b i l i t y that they would be confused. One booklet was labeled "STATEMENTS", another was labeled "QUESTIONNAIRE 1", and the other "QUESTIONNAIRE 2". The statements booklet consisted of 20 pages. One sentence was typed on the middle of each page. At the bottom of each page, the statement "Please do not turn the page u n t i l instructed to do so" appeared. Ten of the 20 statements were randomly selected central statements, the other half were randomly aelected peripheral statements. The 20 statements which appeared in the a c q u i s i t i o n phase for half the subjects (who w i l l be referred to as Group 1) appeared again i n the recognition phase along with 20 new statements which were included to assess f a l s e recognition. For the other half of the subjects (who are referred to as Group 2), these 20 "new" statements were the a c q u i s i t i o n items while Group l' a a c q u i s i t i o n items became t h i s group's "new" recognition items. This counterbalancing was done because the random selection of features could produce a set of features that was extraordinarily memorable or not at a l l memorable (due to item length, e t c . ) . By making one group's a c q u i s i t i o n items another group's recognition items, such e f f e c t s should be easier to detect. 72 For the acquaition phase, each a t t r i b u t e waa inaerted into the aentence frame, "Chria and Pat'a relationahip i a characterized by " (e.g., g i v i n g ) . For a few cases, the word "by" was replaced by "as" (e.g., "Chris and Pat's relationship i s characterized as a promise"). Each statement was constructed so that i t occupied no more than one l i n e . While most of the attributes eaaily met with t h i a conatraint, a few attributes l i k e "concern for the other's well-being" were shortened to accommodate t h i s r e s t r i c t i o n . (This a t t r i b u t e was presented aa "Chris and Pat's relationahip i a characterized by concern for each other"). The atatementa were preaented in a di f f e r e n t random order for each subject. The at t r i b u t e s seen by the subjects are presented in Table 4. The booklet e n t i t l e d "QUESTIONNAIRE 1" consisted of two pages. The f i r s t page contained the interference taak instructions: "On t h i s page, take a few minutes to l i s t as many of the Canadian provinces as you can in alphabetical order". The second page contained the r e c a l l taak instructions: "On t h i a page, write down as many of the statements presented in the booklet about Chris and Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p as you can remember. Be as accurate as you can, but don't leave out any statements just because you can't remember the exact wording". The "QUESTIONNAIRE 2" booklet contained 40 statements: The o r i g i n a l 20 (10 central/10 peripheral) statements the subject had seen were randomly interspersed with 20 new statements (10 central/10 peripheral) that the subject had not seen in the acquaition phase. Subjecta were given the following 73 inst r u c t i o n s : Below i s a serie s of statements that you may or may not have seen i n the booklet of statements you read e a r l i e r . For each statement, c i r c l e "YES" i f you think the statement appeared in the booklet, and "NO" i f you think the statement was not in the booklet. Then i n d i -cate how confident you are that you did or did not see the statement using a scale of 1 to 4, where l=not at a l l confident and 4=extremely confident. A l l three booklets were placed in a sealed envelope (see Appendix E). Remaining materials consisted of a tape recorder and a stop watch. The verbal signals indicating when to turn the page and begin reading the next statement were pre-recorded. Because both r e c a l l and recognition memory were of in t e r e s t , i t was important that subjects were given enough time to read each statement, but not enough time to memorize each statement. P i l o t t esting revealed that 4 seconds seemed to be the optimal time for subjects to comfortably read each statement once and turn the page to the next statement. To ensure that each 4-second i n t e r v a l would be standardized across statements and across classes, the verbal signals of when to s t a r t reading the f i r s t statement and when to turn each page were tape recorded. A stop watch was used for timing the interference and r e c a l l tasks. Procedure Each subject received an envelope containing the three 74 booklets. The experimenter verbally gave subjects the following instructions: In t h i s experiment you w i l l be reading a series of statements. Each statement describes some aspect of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between two f i c t i o n a l people, Chris and Pat. I would l i k e you to simply read each state-ment. Later, I ' l l ask you some questions about Chris and Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p . The experimenter then showed the class a sample copy of the booklet of statements, pointing out the "Do not turn the page..." i n s t r u c t i o n . She then went on to say: You w i l l have a few seconds to read each statement. The voice on the tape recorder w i l l say, "Three, two, one, s t a r t " . When you hear the word "START", read the statement on the f i r s t page of the blue booklet. When the voice says "TURN", turn the page and read the next statement. The experimenter then asked i f there were any questions, and repeated the l a s t set of instructions, to ensure that the subjects understood the task. She then asked them to take the STATEMENTS booklet out of the envelope and started the tape recording. This phase of the experiment took 1.33 minutes. After subjects had read a l l the statements, the experimenter asked them to return the statements booklet to the envelope (to preclude the p o s s i b i l i t y of subjects r e f e r r i n g back to the statements during the memory tasks). They were then asked to 75 r e t r i e v e QUESTIONNAIRE 1 from the envelope. The experimenter s i g n a l l e d when they could begin working on the f i r s t page of the booklet. They were given one minute to work on the interference taak. They were then instructed to go on to the next page (the r e c a l l task). Subjects were given three minutes to r e c a l l as much aa they could. Thia appeared to be s u f f i c i e n t time for them to write down aa much aa they remembered. F i n a l l y , subjects were asked to return QUESTIONNAIRE 1 to the envelope, and to begin QUESTIONNAIRE 2 (the recognition task). They were given as much time as they wished to complete t h i s questionnaire. The entire envelope was then handed in to the experimenter. Reaulta Analysis of Presented Attributes: Recognition Data In the recognition phase, subjects were presented with the central and peripheral featurea they had previously seen, and made a yea/no decision as to whether the item had been previously presented. For each subject, the number of yes's for presented central features and the number of yes's for presented peripheral features was tabulated. Theae data were entered into a 2X2 mixed ANOVA with group (1/2) as the between-subjects factor and a t t r i b u t e (central/peripheral) as the within-subjects fa c t o r . Love and commitment data were analyzed separately. It was expected that there would be no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between recognition of central and peripheral attributes ( i . e . , that memory for these featurea would be v e r i d i c a l ) . Consistent with t h i s p rediction, for love there was no s i g n i f i c a n t main 76 e f f e c t for a t t r i b u t e , F <1, p_ >.10. The means indicated that recognition rates were quite high. The mean number of central features recognized out of 10 was 7.98, while the mean number of peripheral features recognized was 8.07. There was no s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t for group, F <1, although a s i g n i f i c a n t Group by Attribute i n t e r a c t i o n was obtained, F(1,58)=9.22, p_ <.01. Simple e f f e c t s analyses revealed that subjects i n Group 1 recognized s i g n i f i c a n t l y more peripheral than central features (8.40 vs. 7.60), F(l,29)=7.07, p_=.013. Subjects in Group 2 recognized more central than peripheral features (8.37 vs. 7.73). However, t h i s e f f e c t was nonsignificant, F(1,29)=3.04, p_= . 09. For commitment, there was also no main e f f e c t for a t t r i b u t e , F <1. Overall, 7.68 of 10 central attributes and 7.5 out of 10 peripheral a t t r i b u t e s were co r r e c t l y recognized. There was no main e f f e c t for group, F(1,58)=3.41, p=.07, and no s i g n i f i c a n t group by a t t r i b u t e i n t e r a c t i o n , F <1. Analysis of Nonpresented Attributes: Recognition Data Ten central and 10 peripheral nonpresented features were included with the 20 presented features to assess f a l s e recognition e f f e c t s . These data were analyzed exactly as the presented features data. It was expected that unlike the v e r i d i c a l memory e f f e c t s predicted for the correct recognition data, here subjects would show a bias toward recognizing c e n t r a l , but not peripheral, nonpresented features. For love, the r e s u l t s supported predictions. A s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t for 77 attr i b u t e waa obtained, F (1,58) =83.54, p_ <.001. Of the 10 central itema, an average of 4.00 were f a l a e l y recognized, whereaa of the 10 peripheral attributea, only an average of 1.63 were f a l a e l y recognized. There waa no a i g n i f l e a n t main e f f e c t due to group, nor waa there . a aignfleant Group by Attribute interaction, F'a <1. The commitment r e s u l t s mirrored the love r e s u l t s — t h e r e was a main e f f e c t due to attribute, F (1,58) =48.34, p_ <.001, with subjects f a l s e l y recognizing more central than peripheral featurea (3.72 vs. 2.00). No other s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t a were found, F'a <1. Thus, o v e r a l l , the results supported predictions f o r v e r i d i c a l memory for presented features. Subjects c o r r e c t l y recognized at least 75 per cent of the features they had seen—both central and peripheral. The predicted f a l s e recognition e f f e c t for central versus peripheral features was strongly supported for both love and commitment. Analysis of Presented Attributes: Recall Data Subjects were instructed to r e c a l l as much as poaaible, but not to leave out any itema aimply becauae they f a i l e d to remember the exact wording of a atatement. Therefore, two judgea coded each aubject'a reaponaea. The large majority of diacrepanciea between what the subjects read and what they r e c a l l e d were of a syntactic nature (e.g., "They are physically attracted to each other" for "physical a t t r a c t i o n " ) . The few instances of responses that were highly synonymous with what the 78 subject a c t u a l l y saw were decided by r e f e r r i n g to the Study One raw data and ascertaining which synonyms had been allowed for a p a r t i c u l a r category. A l l of the judgments proved to be very straightforward--there were no cases in which the judges disagreed on how a response should be coded. For each subject, the number of central a t t r i b u t e s (out of a possible 10) c o r r e c t l y recalled was tabulated. These numbers were then entered into a 2X2 mixed ANOVA, with group (1/2) as the between-subjects factor and a t t r i b u t e (central/peripheral) as the within-subjects factor. Again, r e s u l t s were analyzed separately for love and commitment. For love, there was a s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t f o r a t t r i b u t e , F(1,58)=12.11, p_ <.001, such that, o v e r a l l , more peripheral than central features were recalled (4.00 vs. 3.22). This finding was rather s u r p r i s i n g and unexpected. There was no main e f f e c t for group, F <1. A s i g n i f i c a n t Group by Attribute interaction was obtained, F (1,58) =16.21, p_ <.001. Simple e f f e c t s analyses revealed that Group 1 subjects r e c a l l e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y more peripheral than central features (4.43 vs. 2.60), F(1,29)=36.48, p_ <.001. Group 2 subjects r e c a l l e d s l i g h t l y more central than peripheral features, (3.70 vs. 3.38), although t h i s e f f e c t was not s i g n i f i c a n t , F <1. For commitment, there were no s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t s due to group or a t t r i b u t e , nor were there any s i g n i f i c a n t interactions, a l l F' s <1.71, p_'s >.10. There was a tendency fo r subjects to r e c a l l more central than peripheral a t t r i b u t e s (3.22 vs. 2.92). 79 Analvaia of Nonpreaented Attributes: Recall Data Itema that subjects r e c a l l e d seeing, but which were, in f a c t , not presented were considered next. The two judges again coded the responses. For the love a t t r i b u t e s , following the procedure established for the presented items, responses which were i d e n t i c a l to, or syntactic variants of, the remaining 24 central a t t r i b u t e s (subjects aaw 10, therefore could only f a l a e l y r e c a l l 24) or the remaining 24 peripheral attributed were coded aa such. The same procedure waa applied to the commitment at t r i b u t e a , where aubjecta could f a l a e l y r e c a l l 10 central and 10 peripheral a t t r i b u t e a . Idioayncratic itema ( i . e . , itema that were not part of the prototypea of love and commitment aa determined in Study One) were omitted from the analyaea. The nature of theae itema w i l l be diacuaaed l a t e r . The falae r e c a l l data were analyzed in the aame way aa the correct r e c a l l data. For love, aa predicted, there waa a a i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t for type of a t t r i b u t e , F(1,58)=32.42, p_ <.001, auch that aubjecta r e c a l l e d having aeen more central than peripheral nonpreaented featurea (.88 va. .15). There were no a i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t a or interactions due to group, F's <1. S i m i l a r l y , f o r commitment, there was a main e f f e c t for type of a t t r i b u t e , F(1,58)=34.40, p_ <.001. Subjects f a l s e l y r e called seeing more central than peripheral features (.77 vs. .08). There was also a s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t for group, F(l,58)=8.15, p_ <.01, such that, o v e r a l l , subjects i n Group 2 80 intruded more nonpreaented features than did subjects in Group 1 (.60 vs. .25). A s i g n i f i c a n t Group by Attribute interaction was also obtained, F( 1, 58) =4 .61, p_ <.05. Group 2 subjects f a l s e l y r e c a l l e d more central and more peripheral featurea (1.07, and .13, respectively) than did subjects in Group 1 (.47 and .03, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . Simple e f f e c t s analyses showed that while both groups f a l s e l y r e c a l l e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y more central than peripheral statements, the e f f e c t was stronger for Group 2, F( 1,29) =32.11, p_ <.001, than for Group 1, F(1,29)=6.92, p_ <.025. (See Appendix F for summary tables f o r the analyses of variance conducted i n t h i s study.) The r e c a l l data for presented a t t r i b u t e s are not extremely clear cut. Recall data for the featurea of commitment mirrored the r e s u l t s obtained for recognition memory for both concepts. The r e c a l l data for presented love a t t r i b u t e s i s puzzling. False r e c a l l e f f e c t s l a r g e l y conformed to predictions. Concerning the i d i o s y n c r a t i c items that were excluded from these analyses, f o r love there were 15 such intruded items (mentioned by at least one of the 60 subjects), excluding giving the category l a b e l , "love", (which w i l l be discussed l a t e r ) . These included items l i k e "characterized as a good re l a t i o n s h i p " , "compatible", "consistency", "positive environment" and so on. For commitment, there were 26 intruded items, excluding the category name. These included responses l i k e "willingness", " l i v i n g i n the same house", "spending time together", " s e n s i t i v i t y " , "being" and so on. The fa c t that some subjects gave the category name (even ai though i t was not presented) could mean that the manipulation of the prototype was, in f a c t , successful. Of the 60 subjects who received the love a t t r i b u t e s , eight (13.3X) f a l s e l y r e c a l l e d having seen the category name, "love", while only three subjects (5*) thought they had seen "commitment". Ten subjects (16.7*) in the commitment condition f a l a e l y r e c a l l e d seeing the category label (6 aubjecta in Group 1; 4 aubjecta in Group 2); while 11 aubjecta (18.3*) f a l s e l y r e c a l l e d seeing "Love". Only one of the Group 1 subjects mentioned "love", while 10 of the subjects i n Group 2 mentioned "love". One might expect t h i s f inding i f aubjecta in Group 2 were preaented with more ahared attributea than aubjecta i n Group 1—a preponderance of ahared featurea would increaae the p r o b a b i l i t y that either love or commitment would be e l i c i t e d . However, an examination of the featurea aeen by aubjecta i n both groupa reveala that each group waa preaented with approximately an equal number of ahared features. Unfortunately, a meaningful diacuasion of these percentages i a hampered by the confounding of category labels and a t t r i b u t e s . As Mervis and Rosch (1981) point out, "red" i s a color category. However, "red" i s also an attribute of an object (e.g., "red b a l l " ) . In the same way, i f a subject receives love a t t r i b u t e s and mentions the word "love", a/he could be giving the category l a b e l . It i s also possible that s/he construed the set of a t t r i b u t e s as something other than love (e.g., commitment), and i a l i a t i n g "love" aa a feature of that concept. Diacuaaion 82 Recognition Memory F i r s t , i t was predicted that subjects would co r r e c t l y recognize both central and peripheral presented features of love and commitment. Generally, t h i s hypothesis received support, although a s i g n i f i c a n t group by att r i b u t e i n t e r a c t i o n was obtained for love, such that subjects in Group 1 co r r e c t l y recognized more peripheral than central features. The overall finding that subjects can v e r i d i c a l l y recognize presented information--regardless of i t s c e n t r a l i t y - - i s consistent with the findings reported by Cantor and Mischel (1977). The predictions concerning fa l s e recognition e f f e c t s were strongly supported by both the love and the commitment data. Subjects f a l s e l y recognized more nonpresented central featurea than peripheral features. Again, these r e s u l t s r e p l i c a t e those obtained by Cantor and Mischel. In conjunction, the correct and f a l s e recognition r e s u l t s suggest the co-existence of v e r i d i c a l and prototype-biased memory for the featurea of love and commitment. Recall Memory The inclusion of r e c a l l memory as a variable was exploratory, and firm predictions were made only for fals e r e c a l l e f f e c t s . But f i r s t , the r e c a l l data f o r presented features w i l l be considered. For love, there i s the surprising r e s u l t that more peripheral than central features were re c a l l e d , p a r t i c u l a r l y for Group 1. The commitment r e s u l t s p a r a l l e l e d the recognition memory r e s u l t s : There was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between mean number of central and mean number of peripheral S3 featurea remembered. The falae r e c a l l data aupported the hypotheaia that l i k e recognition memory, r e c a l l memory would be biaaed toward intruding central featurea. For commitment, Group 2 f a l a e l y r e c a l l e d more featurea--both central and peripheral. The general conclusion to be drawn from t h i a atudy i a that both recognition and r e c a l l memory are accurate f o r both preaented central and peripheral featurea (although, of courae fewer featurea are recalled than recognized). Thia v e r i d i c a l memory e f f e c t co-exiata with a biaa-toward-the-prototype e f f e c t . There are aome nuancea in theae data, which center around the group f a c t o r — a factor pertaining to the actual itema aeen by the aubjecta. The love itema exerted a d i f f e r e n t i a l impact on memory--the peripheral itema aeen by Group 1 aeemed p a r t i c u l a r l y s a l i e n t i n memory. Subjects in t h i a group recognized and reca l l e d more peripheral than central featurea. There i a no clear reason for t h i s finding. One possible explanation resides in the amount of information that was preaented. Even though item length waa r e s t r i c t e d to one l i n e , there waa a t i l l aome v a r i a b i l i t y in the length of theae atatementa. An examination of Group l ' s itema reveala that 5 of the 10 central itema are phrases, while only 2 of the peripheral itema conaist of more than one word. Thua, the enhanced memory &££ec±.a for the peripheral featurea may be due to the f a c t that there waa aimply leas to remember compared to the central featurea. An inapection of Group 2'a itema, however, doea not corroborate t h i a conjecture: 9 out of 10 central itema were monoleximlc, compared to only 3 of the peripheral itema. Thua here one would expect a 84 more pronounced memory e f f e c t for central items, yet t h i s did not occur. It may also be the case that because each subject received the features in a d i f f e r e n t random order (to control for systematic recency e f f e c t s across features), through some chance occurrence, subjects in Group 1 received most of the peripheral items at the end. Such an occurrence i s possible, although not very probable. The two groups which received commitment items d i f f e r e d only on one occasion: Group 2 r e c a l l e d more central and more peripheral nonpreaented items, although the predicted bias toward central features was s t i l l obtained. Explanations in terms of recency e f f e c t s , item length, etc., do not seem applicable here. A l l one can say i s that for some reason, the Group 2 items triggered more f a l s e r e c a l l , although not more fa l s e recognition. In conclusion, despite certain nuances, the r e s u l t s support the view that love and commitment function as prototypes which a f f e c t the organization of information in memory. It was expected that the appropriate concept would be activated when subjects were presented with i t s featurea. Thereafter, the concept should function as an organizing p r i n c i p l e for processing further material, i n which case i t was expected that there would be a bias toward recognizing and r e c a l l i n g nonpresented but highly related featurea of the concept. It was uncertain whether r e c a l l memory would be v e r i d i c a l — - i t seemed possible that assimilation of the presented material with the 85 prototype might occur to an extent where subjects would not be able to d i f f e r e n t i a t e presented from nonpresented items. However, subjects seemed able to make t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n , even when they were not able to see the items ( i . e . , in the r e c a l l memory phase). Cantor and Mischel comment that the ov e r a l l l e v e l of accuracy in th e i r recognition data argues against a model in the concept formation l i t e r a t u r e in which only a prototype, and not each presented item, i s activated and stored in memory. Such a model waa proposed by Branaford and Franka (1971), who preaented subjects with aentencea containing a p a r t i a l idea. The sentences, in conjunction, formed a complex idea. They found that aubjecta were unable to diacriminate novel aentencea that were conaistent with the idea from aentencea they had actually heard during the acquiaition phaae. The authora concluded that, "In general, Sa did not atore repreaentationa of p a r t i c u l a r aentencea. Individual aentencea loat t h e i r unique atatua in memory in favor of a more wholiatic repreaentation of aemantic events" (p.348). The data here are congruent with Cantor and Miachel'a contention. The f a c t that aupport waa obtained for both v e r i d i c a l and prototype-biaaed recognition and r e c a l l memory i a conaiatent with Cantor and Miachel'a claim that a memory aet (aa oppoaed to an impreaaion-formation aet) f a c i l i t a t e d accurate memory. Thua aubjecta were accurate and inaccurate--accurate in that they remembered what they had aeen, and inaccurate in that they thought they had seen nonpreaented c e n t r a l featurea. 86 Study Four: Use of Hedges as Evidence of Prototype Structure Lakoff (1973), a l i n g u i s t , noted that logicians give truth conditions for predicates in terms of c l a s s i c a l set theory. He observed that any attempt to l i m i t truth conditions for natural language sentences to "true", " f a l s e " or "nonsense", would d i s t o r t these concepts by portraying them as having sharply defined, rather than fuzzy boundaries. Lakoff commented that: For me, some of the most i n t e r e s t i n g questions are raised by the study of words whose meaning i m p l i c i t l y involves fuzziness--words whose job i t i s to make things f u z z i e r or less fuzzy. I w i l l r e f e r to such words as "hedges" <p.471). Most people would agree that the statement "A robin i s a b i r d " i a true. Replacing "robin" with "chicken" makes the sentence less true. Lakoff suggested that we use hedges in natural language to indicate degrees of truth or f a l s i t y . Translated into prototype terminology, one could say that we use hedges to indicate distance from the prototype, or degree of category membership. A robin i s a very prototypical b i r d , a chicken i s less so, and a penguin i s only a borderline member. Thus, a sentence l i k e , "A robin i s sort of a b i r d " should be unnatural sounding because a robin is. a b i r d , and i s a very good bird at that. Substituting "penguin", however, should produce a natural sounding sentence. The hedge "sort of" communicates that while penguins are birds, they are not good examples of "birdneas". 87 The purpose of t h i a atudy waa to diacover whether the layperaon uaea hedgea i n a way that i a conaiatent with what one would expect baaed on prototype theory. Subjects were given information about the relationahip between two p e o p l e — e i t h e r that they love each other, or that they are committed to one another. The featurea of love or commitment were then presented in a sentence containing a hedge. It waa expected that becauae hedgea indicate degreea of fuzzineas, aentences in which a peripheral a t t r i b u t e was prefaced with a hedge should sound quite natural, whereas hedging a central a t t r i b u t e ahould y i e l d a peculiar Bounding aentence. Naturalneaa ratinga (aa oppoaed to ratinga of truth or f a l a i t y ) were choaen becauae they seemed more l i k e l y to e l i c i t a apontaneoua, "gut" reaction to the aound of the aentence. Thia reaction preaumably correaponds with or r e f l e c t a the prototype structure of the concept being rated. Method Subiecta Subjects were 160 undergraduate atudenta enrolled in a variety of classes: Developmental Psychology, Sex Differences, Biopaychology, and a Human Development claaa taught in the Family and N u t r i t i o n a l Sciences program. Materials P i l o t t e s t i n g revealed that subjects found i t f a t i g u i n g to make too many judgments of t h i a kind. Therefore, materiala for th i a atudy conaiated of eight forma of a questionnaire: three for commitment and f i v e for love. (Five forma were required for Sd love because i t possesses more features than commitment.) The three forma of the commitment questionnaire contained 13, 13, and 14 items. The f i v e forms of the love questionnaire contained either 13 or 14 items as well. Three hedges from Lakoff's l i s t of hedges (p.472) were chosen: kind of, sort of, and somewhat. These hedges were selected for the following reasons: The f i r s t and most important consideration waa that the layperson understand the hedges. Given that t h i s i s a study of everyday language, i t seemed inappropriate to use hedges that are probably not part of the layperson's vocabulary, and in fa c t may not even be understood (e.g., "mutatis mutandis", "quint e s s e n t i a l l y " , "crypto-"). Second, i t was necessary that the hedges selected were appropriate for use with features of concepts rather than types of concepts. This eliminated hedges l i k e "a true", " a l l but a", "more of a than anything else", and so on. The hedges "kind of", "sort of", and "somewhat" f i t these c r i t e r i a . Although other hedges would also have been suitable, three seemed to be an adequate number to provide some variety i n the statementa subjects read, while ensuring that each hedge be used f o r both central and peripheral a t t r i b u t e s . Thus each form of the questionnaire contained approximately an equal number of central and peripheral a t t r i b u t e s , and each hedge was used an equal number of times with peripheral and central statements (obviously i n the 13 item questionnaires t h i s could not be achieved p e r f e c t l y ) . For example, the central statement, "Pat sort of t r u s t s Chris" appeared in one of the 89 love questionnaires, along with the peripheral statement, "Pat sort of admires Chris". S i m i l a r l y , one of the commitment questionnaires contained the peripheral statement, "Pat i s somewhat attached to Chris" aa well aa the central atatement, "Pat i a aomewhat f a i t h f u l to Chria" (see Appendix G>. Procedure The following instructions appeared on the f i r s t page of each of the questionnaires: This questionnaire i s part of a larger project on the sorts of things people have in mind when they hear and use words. In t h i s atudy, we're intereated in how peculiar or how natural certain aentencea con-taining hedgea aound. Hedges are words l i k e "sort of", "kind of", "somewhat", and so on. They serve as q u a l i -f i e r s i n aentencea. If i t ' a not appropriate to uae a q u a l i f i e r , inaerting a hedge in a aentence w i l l y i e l d a peculiar aounding sentence. For example, i f t o l d that Jane i a an extravert, the sentence, "Jane i a aort of outgoing" probably aounda peculiar to moat people, becauae extraverta t y p i c a l l y are outgoing—not just "sort of" outgoing. On the other hand, a sentence l i k e "Jane i s sort of impulsive", probably sounds rather natural, because extraverts can be impulsive, but aren't necessarily impulsive. Thus the use of the hedge, "sort of" i s appropriate in t h i s sentence. In t h i a atudy, we're not interested in sentences 90 about extraverta. Rather, we're interested in how pecu-l i a r or natural sentences about interpersonal r e l a t i o n -ships sound. Below i s a series of statements about the re l a t i o n s h i p between two people who love Care commit-ted] to each other, Chris and Pat. For some of these sentences, the use of a hedge i s appropriate, and therefore, the sentence sounds natural. For other sentences, the use of a hedge i s inappropriate, r e s u l -t i n g i n arather peculiar sounding sentence. Your task i s to read each sentence to yourself and rate how pec-u l i a r or natural i t sounds to you. Don't spend time wondering i f you are right or wrong. There are no ri g h t or wrong answers, so just base your response on your f i r s t impression from reading the sentence. The top of the next page read, "Given that you know Pat and Chris love Care committed to] each other, some of these sentences about t h e i r relationship w i l l sound very peculiar with hedges in them, while others w i l l sound very natural. Rate how peculiar or natural each sentence sounds using the following scale:" Judgments were made on a 7-point scale where l=extremely natural sounding and 7=extremely peculiar sounding. Each version of the questionnaire was completed by 20 subjects. Results The love and commitment data were analyzed separately by a one-factor repeated measures analysis of variance, with type of att r i b u t e (central/peripheral) as the fac t o r . For love, there 91 waa a a i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t for type of a t t r i b u t e , F(l,19)=71.39, p_ <.001 (aee Appendix H) . The mean p e c u l i a r i t y rating acrosa central attributea waa 4.97, while the mean p e c u l i a r i t y rating acroaa peripheral attributea waa 4.13. Thua, aa expected, central featurea were rated aa leas natural sounding when hedged than did peripheral features. For commitment, there waa alao a a i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t f o r type of att r i b u t e , F(1,19) = 26.83, p_ <.001 (aee Appendix H) . Again, p e c u l i a r i t y ratinga were greater for central attributea then for peripheral attributes (5.09 vs. 4.46). The mean p e c u l i a r i t y rating for each attribute appears in Table 5. F i n a l l y , the mean p e c u l i a r i t y rating for each love a t t r i b u t e waa correlated with i t a c e n t r a l i t y rating, r=.52 (p_ <.001). (Correlation baaed on ranka, .49). For commitment, c e n t r a l i t y and p e c u l i a r i t y correlated .58 (.42 baaed on ranka). Diacuaaion The r e s u l t s of t h i s study indicate that the prototype structure of the concepts of love and commitment doea, indeed, appear to be re f l e c t e d in the natural language of the everyday person. Central attributea of love and commitment aounded s i g n i f i c a n t l y more peculiar when prefaced with a hedge than did peripheral a t t r i b u t e s . For example, given that the subject knew that Pat loves Chris, the sentence "Pat sort of l i k e s Chris" received a mean rating of 6.10 on a scale where 7=extremely peculiar sounding, while the sentence "Pat i s sort of dependent on Chris" received a mean rating of 2.45. Given the information 92 that Pat i s committed to Chris, the sentence, "Pat i s kind of devoted to Chris", sounded rather peculiar (mean rating 6.20), while "Pat f e e l s sort of trapped in the r e l a t i o n s h i p " sounded quite natural (mean rating 2.35). The prototype structure of everyday concepts i s t y p i c a l l y investigated using dependent measures such as: reaction time, memory, order and probability of free l i s t i n g , and so on. It would seem that natural language i t s e l f would be an obvious arena for prototype researchers to look f o r p r o t o t y p i c a l i t y effects--given that t h i s approach i s concerned with everyday concepts i n everyday language. However, t h e i r concern with natural language per se seems to have been largely confined to demonstrations that t y p i c a l i t y e f f e c t s are not mediated by f a m i l i a r i t y or frequency of usage in the language (e.g., Hampton & Gardiner, 1983; Malt & Smith, 1982). In a sense, then, natural language has been seen as a source of possible confounding with p r o t o t y p i c a l i t y e f f e c t s . However t h i s study demonstrates that natural language i s yet another domain i n which p r o t o t y p i c a l i t y e f f e c t s are evident. Summary In Studies One to Four, i t was hypothesized that the concepts of love and commitment have a prototype structure. In other words, for each concept i t was predicted that some attributes would be considered more central to the concept than others. Further, i t was expected that t h i s prototype structure would a f f e c t performance in a variety of ways. These e f f e c t s 93 were found. Subjects conaidered aome featurea to be more central to love and commitment than othera. Theae c e n t r a l i t y e f f e c t a were evident in memory, natural language use, and i n a free H a t i n g of featurea taak. Central a t t r i b u t e a were ao a a l i e n t in memory that aubjecta reported having seen them even when they were not preaented. Also, p r o t o t y p i c a l i t y e f f e c t a were r e f l e c t e d in natural language auch that i t aounded peculiar to hedge cen t r a l , but not peripheral, featurea. F i n a l l y , central featurea were l i s t e d with greater frequency than peripheral features. Thia kind of triangulation of measures gives the researcher confidence in making the claim that the layperson's understanding of these concepts i s p r o t o t y p i c a l l y organized. 94 PROTOTYPES OF LOVE AND COMMITMENT IN THE ANALYSIS OF INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS Having established the prototype structure of the concepts of love and commitment, a s i g n i f i c a n t next atep i s to discover whether the prototype structure of these concepts influences how people perceive the dynamics of interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p s . This includes a consideration of how people assess whether or not a relationship i s progressing toward greater love or commitment. The opposite side of the coin i s also of i n t e r e s t , namely what kinds of changes i n a rel a t i o n s h i p lead to the perception that the rel a t i o n s h i p i s no longer loving or committed? As a relationship progresses from having l i t t l e love/commitment to having a great deal of love/commitment, what kinds of changes occur in the properties or features of the rela t i o n s h i p which lead to the appraisal that the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s a loving/committed one? One plausible answer to t h i s question i s that a l l loving relationships possess a substantial subset of the features i d e n t i f i e d in the prototype of love. As the rel a t i o n s h i p becomes more loving, the features of love are seen as more and more applicable to, or c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of, the rel a t i o n s h i p , regardless of the c e n t r a l i t y of these features. Consider, for example, the finding that care i s central to the layperson'8 conception of love but security i s peripheral. Now ask a subject how l i k e l y i t i s that increased caring would be associated with an increase i n love. Then ask the subject how 95 l i k e l y i t i s that an increase in feelings of security would be associated with an increase in love. It i s plausible that the subject w i l l reply that increases in both caring and security are i n d i c a t i v e of increased love. On the other hand, from a prototype perspective, one might hypothesize that as a relationship becomes more loving, the central features of love become systematically more applicable to, or descriptive of, the relationship, while peripheral features would play a more mediocre r o l e . They might be expected to be moderately applicable to most rel a t i o n s h i p s , or i f they vary, to do so in f a i r l y random ways. The r a t i o n a l e i s that central features are closer to the core meaning of the concept, and therefore, changes in the level of love in a r e l a t i o n s h i p should be most evident in changes in the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of those features. Thus, i f the prototype structure of love and commitment has any relevance to people's conceptions of what happens in interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p s , one would expect that increases in central a t t r i b u t e s such as caring should be weighted more heavily in a move toward greater love in a r e l a t i o n s h i p than should increases in peripheral features l i k e security. F i n a l l y , i t i s also possible that while the concepts of love and commitment have a p a r t i c u l a r cognitive structure, people's actual experiences in relationships might override the e f f e c t s of t h i s structure. In other words, people's experiences might have such powerful e f f e c t s that any absolute weighting of the featurea of love and commitment in cognitive representation 96 becomes irrelevant, when addressing the dynamics of interpersonal relationships. For example, our subject may remember her d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with a relationship where she perceived her partner cared a l o t for her, but nevertheless f e l t insecure in the relationship, and t e l l you that security i s r e a l l y very important as a r e l a t i o n s h i p increases in love. Another question worth examining i s : "Do changes in the features of these concepts lead to changes i n the perception of lev e l of love or commitment in a r e l a t i o n s h i p ? " S p e c i f i c a l l y , the kinds of changes considered here are the v i o l a t i o n or negation of features. Is i t the case that a l l negative events have a s i g n i f i c a n t negative impact on a relationship? If the prototype structure of these concepts i s relevant to t h i s issue, one would anticipate that a change i n a central feature of love or commitment, such that the feature i s no longer c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the r e l a t i o n s h i p , should be perceived as contributing to the demise of love or commitment in the r e l a t i o n s h i p . On the other hand, changea in peripheral features should be seen as having a minimal e f f e c t on the l e v e l of love or commitment in a relat i o n s h i p . Referring again to the e a r l i e r example, the perception that your partner no longer cares for you would probably have a pronounced negative impact on your perception of how much a/he loves you. However, i f you no longer f e l t secure in the relatio n s h i p , would t h i s lead you to an equally dismal assessment of how loving your relationship i s ? Or, would a loss of security be less damaging than a loss of caring? Or, would 97 your response depend upon your previous experience in relationships? The next set of studies attempts to demonstrate that the prototypes of love and commitment influence the everyday view of the dynamics of interpersonal relationships--both i n terms of t h e i r enhancement, and in terms of t h e i r decline. Study Five: A p p l i c a b i l i t y of Central and Peripheral Featurea to Loving and Committed Relationships Kelley et al.(1983) conceptualize the l i f e of a dyad as a progression through d i f f e r e n t types of relationships from i n i t i a l acquaintance to termination. They suggest that a rel a t i o n s h i p has moved to a new stage or l e v e l when a marked change in any relationahip property occura. Social psychologists have written about the kinds of changes that take place as relationships become close (See Perlman & Fehr, in press, f o r a review of t h i s l i t e r a t u r e ) . A question that was raised e a r l i e r was: Are these changes of a quantitative or a q u a l i t a t i v e nature? It may be that aa relationahipa become more loving (or more committed), a l l of the featurea of love (commitment) are aeen aa more applicable to, or c h a r a c t e r i a t i c of, the relationahip. There i a aome aupport for t h i a view. In t h e i r review, Perlman and Fehr note that aa relationahipa become cloae, the partners interact more often and for longer periods of time, they gain more knowledge of one another, they increase t h e i r investment in the r e l a t i o n s h i p , and so on. Applied s p e c i f i c a l l y to love and commitment in relationships, one would 98 expect. that as a r e l a t i o n s h i p becomes more loving [committed] , the p r o b a b l i l i t y that the features of love [commitment] would be descriptive of the r e l a t i o n s h i p would increase. As discussed e a r l i e r , subjects' judgments might not be based on t h e i r cognitive representation of these concepts, but on t h e i r prior experiences. On the other hand, from a prototype perspective, one might expect that as relationahipa become more loving or more committed, the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of the features of love and commitment would be weighted d i f f e r e n t i a l l y . S p e c i f i c a l l y , one would anticipate that the central features of these concepts would play an augmented role in s i g n a l l i n g a move toward greater love or commitment in a r e l a t i o n s h i p . This hypothesis was tested here. Based on Kelley et a l . ' s view that one can describe the "career" of a dyad in terms of a progression through various types of relationships, subjects were presented with a large number of d i f f e r e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s , and asked to c l a s s i f y them in terms of love and commitment. These relationships were then used to represent d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of love and commitment in an attempt to discover changes in the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of the central and peripheral features as the relationships became more loving or committed. This study was conducted in two phases. In the f i r s t phase, a group of subjects was presented with a large sample of dyadic relationships which r e f l e c t e d a wide variety of ways people r e l a t e to each other. Half were asked to rate the degree of love in each r e l a t i o n s h i p , while the other half rated the degree of commitment in each r e l a t i o n s h i p . These re l a t i o n s h i p types were 99 then c l a s s i f i e d as ranging from low to high in love or commitment. In the second phase, microcomputers were used to select randomly a rela t i o n s h i p type and then pair i t with a randomly selected central or peripheral a t t r i b u t e . By having the computer randomly s e l e c t d i f f e r e n t types of relationships and attributes from each category, the generalizabi1ity of the experimental r e s u l t s i s enhanced. The pro b a b i l i t y that the reaulta are due to the p a r t i c u l a r types of relationahipa and/or attributea choaen i a reduced. To summarize, i t waa hypotheaized that aa relationships increased in love, the attributes that are most central to the concept of love would be aeen aa increaaingly more applicable. S i m i l a r l y , aa r e l a t i o n s h i p s increased in commitment, the features central to the concept of commitment would be considered increasingly more applicable. Peripheral a t t r i b u t e s were expected to remain r e l a t i v e l y impervious to increases in either love or commitment. The concepts of love and commitment were considered separately here, although the same predictions were made for each concept. Method Subiects Subjects were 90 undergraduates from the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. In the f i r s t phase, 30 subjects rated the relationship types f o r degree of love, and 30 subjects rated the relationship typea for degree of commitment. These 60 respondents were students in a developmental psychology class lOO who volunteered t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n . In the second phase, IS subjects rated the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of central and peripheral love attr i b u t e s to the d i f f e r e n t types of love relationships; 15 rated the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of commitment attributes to types of committed re l a t i o n s h i p s . These subjects were enrolled in a Research Methods course. They agreed to pa r t i c i p a t e in the study following t h e i r laboratory assignment in the computer laboratory. Phase 1: Rating Typea of Relationships Materials. Subjects were given a l i s t of types of relationships which contained the Wish, Deutsch, and Kaplan (1976) l i s t of 25 t y p i c a l r e l a t i o n s . The entire Wish et a l . l i s t was included with the following changes: "fiance and fiancee" waa changed to "an engaged couple"; "master and servant" was replaced with "co-workers" ( i t was presumed subjects would not have personal experience with master-servant r e l a t i o n s h i p s ) . This l i s t waa aupplemented with the Forgaa and Doboaz (19S0) l i a t of 25 relationahip typea. "A de facto relationahip between two previoualy married people" waa excluded becauae there waa aome doubt as to whether subjects would know the meaning of the words "de facto". Besides, the Wiah et a l . l i a t included the more comprehensible category, "divorced huaband and wife". Four additional typea were added in an attempt to deal with Kelley's c r i t i c i s m of the Forgaa and Doboaz liat--namely that they did not include examples of relationships which allowed subjects to dist i n g u i s h between love and commitment. He pointed out that 101 they did not. include either examples o£ long term, loving r e l a t i o n s h i p s that f i n a l l y break up, or examples of relat i o n s h i p s that endure without love. To represent the former case, "a high school dating relationship that breaks up once the couple has gone away to college" was included, while "an unhappy, but stable marriage" was added to represent the l a t t e r . Two additional types were included to tap the love/commitment d i s t i n c t i o n : "a middle-aged c h i l d caring for his/her e l d e r l y parent because a/he wants to" and "a middle-aged c h i l d caring for his/her e l d e r l y parent because s/he has to". The f i n a l l i s t of r elationships consisted of 53 types. Procedure. Each subject received a questionnaire t i t l e d RELATIONSHIP TYPES QUESTIONNAIRE which contained the following i n s t r u c t i o n s : This study i s part of a larger study on interper-sonal r e l a t i o n s h i p s . On the next page, you w i l l f i n d a l i s t of various kinds of interpersonal r e l a -tionships that may or may not involve love [commit-ment] . For each one, ask yourself, "To what extent i s t h i s a loving [committed] relationship?" If you think that the relat i o n s h i p i s d e f i n i t e l y not a loving [committed] relationship, give i t a 1 which means "not at a l l loving [committed]". If you think a p a r t i c u l a r r e l a t i o n s h i p i s d e f i n i t e l y a loving [committed] re l a t i o n s h i p , give i t a 9 which means "extremely loving [committed]". A 5 would mean the 102 r e l a t i o n s h i p i s moderately loving [committed]. Don't worry about why you think each relationship i s or i s not characterized by love [commitment]--just give us your opinion. Results The love and commitment ratings were analyzed separately in a one factor repeated measures of analysis of variance, with the 53 d i f f e r e n t relationships constituting l e v e l s of the repeated factor. For love, F(1,52)=71.00, p_ <-001; for commitment, F< 1,52) =46.18, p_ <.001 (see Appendix J ) . Newman-Keuls post hoc comparisons were used to p a r t i t i o n the types of relationships into groups which were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from one another. Based on t h i s analysis, i t seemed appropriate to select groups of relationships from four levels of love/commitment: a high, medium high, medium low, and a low group. Within each of these l e v e l s , four relationship types were selected randomly. For love, the mean ratings of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s types selected within each of the four l e v e l s of love were: 8.54, 6.59, 4.43, and 2.36, respectively (ratings made on a scale where l=not at a l l loving and 9=extremely loving). For commitment the mean ratings were: 8.57, 6.58, 4.40, and 2.33, respectively. The actual r e l a t i o n s h i p types chosen for each of these groups for use i n the second phase of the study appear in Table 6. For both the high and low groups, two of the four relationship types were the same for love and commitment. The random selection of r e l a t i o n s h i p types also resulted i n one of the relationship 103 types appearing in the medium-high group for both love and commitment. Discussion What kinds of relationships were considered loving and committed? For both love and commitment, the re l a t i o n s h i p types: husband and wife, parent and young c h i l d , a 25 year marriage, an engaged couple, and marriage after a long courtship received the highest mean ratings. The relationships which received the lowest love and commitment ratings were: business r i v a l s , personal enemies, interviewer and job applicant, and a one-night sexual encounter. Some relationship types were rated higher in commitment than i n love. For example, "business partners" received a mean commitment rating of 6.63 on the 9-point scale, compared to only 3.60 for love. S i m i l a r l y , "guard and prisoner" was rated as a more committed than loving relationship (4.23 vs. 1.73), as was "psychotherapist and patient" (6.63 vs. 4.00). In cases where relationships were rated higher for love than f o r commitment, the differences between mean ratings tended to be smaller. "An a f f a i r with a married person" received a mean love rating of 4.97 compared to 3.50 for commitment. S i m i l a r l y , "second cousins" was rated as more loving than committed (4.97 vs. 3.57), as was "a high school dating relationship that breaks up once the couple has gone away to college" (4.60 vs. 3.30). The mean love and commitment ratings of the 53 re l a t i o n s h i p types were highly correlated, r=.85 (.83 based on ranks). 104 Phaae 2: Rating A p p l i c a b i l i t y of Attributea to Relationships. Materials. This phase of the study was conducted on Radio Shack TRS 80 Model I l l ' s and Model IV'a microcomputers. A program was written that selected a rela t i o n s h i p type from one of the classes of love or commitment relationships, and then selected either a central or peripheral a t t r i b u t e (based on the Study Two c e n t r a l i t y r a t i n g s ) . The program was designed so that each subject rated the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of a randomly selected central attribute to a l l 16 relationship types and rated the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of a peripheral a t t r i b u t e to a l l 16 types, re s u l t i n g in a t o t a l of 32 judgments. Procedure. Subjects were ushered into the computer laboratory and seated. The following instructions appeared on the screen: TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS STUDY This i s a study to f i n d out the kinds of a t t r i b u t e s and behaviors that are c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of various types of re l a t i o n s h i p s . The computer w i l l provide you with a description of a p a r t i c u l a r interpersonal relationship. This w i l l be followed by an a t t r i b u t e that may or may not apply to that r e l a t i o n s h i p . Your task i s to decide whether or not that a t t r i b u t e des-cribes or i s applicable to the re l a t i o n s h i p . For example, i f the relat i o n s h i p presented was "den-t i s t - p a t i e n t " , the attributes "ENJOY PARTYING TO-GETHER" or "TALK TO EACH OTHER ABOUT ANYTHING" are 105 probably not very applicable to most dentist-patient r e l a t i o n s h i p s , while "POLITE, FORMAL SPEECH" or "YOU GIVE THE PERSON MONEY", are probably c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of most dentist-patient r e l a t i o n s h i p s . If an a t t r i b u t e would probably be true for only 0-10* of a l l relationships of the kind rated, give i t a score of 1 which means "not at a l l a p p l i -cable". A score of 9 means "extremely applicable" --the a t t r i b u t e would apply to 90-100* of a l l r e l a -tionships of the kind rated. When rating the r e l a -tionships, keep in mind that we're interested in what you think t y p i c a l l y occurs, not what you think i s s o c i a l l y correct or morally proper. When you are ready to begin, h i t the ENTER key. If you have any questions, r a i s e your hand and the experimenter w i l l help you. The computer then selected a type of r e l a t i o n s h i p (in lower case l e t t e r s ) and an a t t r i b u t e (which appeared below the r e l a t i o n s h i p type in upper case l e t t e r s ) . This was followed by "To what extent i a t h i s a t t r i b u t e (printed below the re l a t i o n s h i p type) applicable to t h i s relationship? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 not at a l l moderately extremely applicable applicable applicable 106 Press the appropriate number, and then preas ENTER." Subjects rated the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of the attr i b u t e s to either the love r e l a t i o n s h i p s or the commitment relati o n s h i p s . They spent approximately 10 minutes on the task. Results The data were analyzed in a 4X2 repeated measures analysis of variance with type of rel a t i o n s h i p (high/medium high/medium low/ low) and type of a t t r i b u t e (central/peripheral) as the within subject factors. The r e s u l t s were analyzed for love and commitment separately. A s i g n i f i c a n t Relationship X Attribute i n t e r a c t i o n was predicted for each concept, such that as a relati o n s h i p increased in love/commitment, central a t t r i b u t e s would be seen as increasingly more applicable. For love, there was a s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t f o r type of r e l a t i o n s h i p , F<3,42) =19.06, p_<-001, such that as the relationships became more loving, the mean a p p l i c a b i l i t y ratings of the at t r i b u t e s increased. There was no main e f f e c t for a t t r i b u t e , F <1,14)=2.55, p_>.10. The predicted Relationship by Attribute i n t e r a c t i o n was obtained, F < 3, 42) =4 .47, p_ <.01 (see Figure 3; Appendix J shows the summary table for the analysis of variance). The mean a p p l i c a b i l i t y ratings for central features were 7.410, 6.808, 4.543, and 3.865 from high to low love r e l a t i o n s h i p s . The means for peripheral features from high to low love r e l a t i o n s h i p s were 5.870, 6.193, 4.762 and 4.327. Simple e f f e c t analyses revealed that while the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of 107 both central and peripheral love features increased as the relationships became more loving, t h i s e f f e c t was stronger for central features, F (3,42)=32.10, p_ <.001, than for peripheral features, F(3,42)=8.56, p_ <.025. Mean a p p l i c a b i l i t y ratings for central and peripheral featurea were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t only for the high love relationahipa, F(1,14)=12.90, p_ < .01. ( A l l other F'a <2.06, p_'a >.10). Similar reaulta were obtained f o r commitment. There was a s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t for type of r e l a t i o n s h i p , F(3,42)=64.84, p_ <.001, such that as the relationships became more committed, a l l a t t r i b u t e s were aeen aa more applicable. No main e f f e c t for type of a t t r i b u t e waa obtained, F( 1,14) =1.24, p_ >.10. There waa a a i g n i f i c a n t Relationahip by Attribute interaction, F (3,42) =3.17, p_ <.05 (aee Figure 4; Appendix J shows the summary table for the analysis of variance). The mean a p p l i c a b i l i t y ratings of the central attributes were 7.334, 6.763, 4.499, and 2.382, respectively. The means for peripheral a t t r i b u t e s were 6.554, 6.272, 3.979, and 3.276, from high to low commitment relatio n s h i p s . Simple effects analyses showed that while the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of both central and peripheral commitment features increased as the relationahipa became more committed, t h i s e f f e c t waa stronger for central featurea, F(3,42)=56.87, p_ <-001, than for peripheral features, F(3,42) =29.68, p_ <.001. Mean a p p l i c a b i l i t y ratings for central and peripheral features were d i f f e r e n t f o r both high and low commitment relationships, although these differences were only marginally s i g n i f i c a n t - - f o r high commitment relationships, F (1,14) =4 .41, p_ <.06; for low 108 commitment relationships, F(1,14)=3.37, p_ <.09. ( A l l other F's <1.5, p_'s > . 10) . Discussion It was hypothesized that as relationships become more loving or more committed, central features would be seen as increasingly more c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the relationship than would peripheral features. Alternative hypotheses were that a l l features would be seen as increasing in a p p l i c a b i l i t y , or that subjects would base t h e i r responses on the i r own, i d i o s y n c r a t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p experiences, thereby y i e l d i n g l i t t l e between-subject agreement. The main e f f e c t for type of rel a t i o n s h i p indicated that, o v e r a l l , both central and peripheral features of love and of commitment were seen as more applicable as the re l a t i o n s h i p s became more loving or more committed, respectively. Thus, there was some support for the notion that as relationships grow from being characterized by l i t t l e love/commitment to being very loving/committed, the rel a t i o n s h i p begins to i l l u s t r a t e the prototype to a greater extent. There was also support for the view that central and peripheral features assume d i f f e r e n t i a l importance as a relati o n s h i p increases in love or commitment. An examination of Figures 3 and 4 shows that the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of central a t t r i b u t e s increases systematically as the rela t i o n s h i p s increase in love and commitment. Peripheral features did not exhibit the same r e g u l a r i t y . For one, peripheral features, more 109 than central features, tended to be moderately applicable to a l l relationahip typea. Thia waa p a r t i c u l a r l y a t r i k i n g for commitment, where the range of mean a p p l i c a b i l i t y ratinga on the 9-point acale only spanned 1.87 points compared to 3.55 for central featurea. (For love, theae figurea are 3.28 and 4.60, res p e c t i v e l y ) . Central and peripheral features behaved most d i f f e r e n t l y for the high and low rela t i o n s h i p types. Thus, for relationahipa that were low i n love or commitment, i t i s clear that subjects did not see central features aa very applicable, while mean a p p l i c a b i l i t y ratings for peripheral features were higher. In contrast, the relationships highest in love and commitment received the highest a p p l i c a b i l i t y ratings for central features. Peripheral features were seen as less applicable, and i n the case of love, the medium-high relationships received higher a p p l i c a b i l i t y ratings than did the high r e l a t i o n s h i p s . What these r e s u l t s seem to indicate i s that, while both central and peripheral features become more descriptive of the relationship as i t increases in love or commitment, i t i s the central features that act as true barometers of a change toward increased love or commitment in a re l a t i o n s h i p . These results are consistent with those obtained by Dion and Dion (1976). They administered love, l i k i n g , and t r u s t scales to couples who were c l a s s i f i e d as: casual daters, exclusive datera, engaged, and married. Casual daters had lower love scores compared to the other three groups. Married persons scored higher than casual daters on the truat acale. However, there were no differencea i n 110 l i k i n g between the groups. Thus, t r u s t , a central feature, was nost applicable to the most loving relationships, while l i k i n g , a peripheral feature of love, was equally applicable to a l l four groups. F i n a l l y , i t seemed possible that while laypersons structure t h e i r knowledge about the concepts of love and commitment in the aame way (and thus agree on the c e n t r a l i t y of features, exhibit memory biases toward the same sort of features, and use natural language i n s i m i l a r ways), t h i s structure might not necessarily translate into the domain of conceptions of dynamics of interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Because i t was found that the prototype structure of these concepts affected subjects' judgments about the dyanmics of interpersonal relationships, i t seems l i k e l y that these perceptions have considerable importance for the course of people's " r e a l world" relationship experiences. Study Six: V i o l a t i o n s of the Features of Love and Commitment In the previous study, subjects were provided with types of relationships and asked to infer what at t r i b u t e s were associated with these r e l a t i o n s h i p s . In t h i s study, another perspective was examined. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the following question was considered: "What repercussions do v i o l a t i o n s of relationship attributes have for evaluations of the le v e l of love or commitment perceived to e x i s t in a relationship?" I t might be the case that v i o l a t i o n s of any of the features of love and commitment would be seen as seriously harming the re l a t i o n s h i p . On the other I l l hand, i£ the central attributea of love and commitment have a more pronounced impact on relationahip experiencea than peripheral attributea, one might expect a v i o l a t i o n or negation of a central feature to threaten more aerioualy the atatua of a relationahip. Again, a change in a peripheral feature might be expected to have only a minimal e f f e c t . Stated d i f f e r e n t l y , v i o l a t i o n a of peripheral attributea might be conaidered "forgiveable", whereas v i o l a t i o n of central attributea would be more l i k e l y to be seen as grounds for relationship d i s s o l u t i o n . Aa in the previous study, the t h i r d p o s s i b i l i t y waa that subjects' reaponaea might be determined by their own experiencea with the diasolution or deterioration of relationships. To t e s t t h i s hypothesis, subjects were presented with a relationship scenario i n which the partners were described as high i n love and high in commitment. They were then asked to respond to a aeries of statements depicting various events that could occur in the r e l a t i o n s h i p , and were asked to indicate what the repercussions of those events would be for the r e l a t i o n s h i p . One group of subjects received only attributes unique to love and commitment, while another group received a t t r i b u t e s shared by love and commitment. It was expected that a v i o l a t i o n of the central a t t r i b u t e s of love would be seen as having a large e f f e c t on whether or not the r e l a t i o n s h i p would continue to be loving, whereas a v i o l a t i o n of the peripheral a t t r i b u t e s of love would be seen as exerting a n e g l i g i b l e influence. The same pattern of r e s u l t s was expected for commitment. Further, v i o l a t i o n s of the central 112 attri b u t e s of love were expected to have an e f f e c t r e l a t i v e l y independently of v i o l a t i o n s of the attibutes of commitment, and vice-versa. In the case where attributes shared by love and commitment were used, i t was predicted that an a t t r i b u t e would exert a d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t on love and commitment i f i t s c e n t r a l i t y rating was a i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t for love and for commitment. For example, i f an a t t r i b u t e was considered more central to love than to commitment, i t was expected that a v i o l a t i o n of the attr i b u t e would have a more s i g n i f i c a n t impact on love than on commitment. The converse was predicted for at t r i b u t e s rated as more central to commitment. For features whose c e n t r a l i t y ratings on love and commitment were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t , no d i f f e r e n t i a l impact on love and commitment was anticipated. Method Subiecta Subjects were 234 undergraduates from the University of B r i t i s h Columbia enrolled in the following courses: Introductory Psychology, Social Psychology, Brain and Behaviour, and Behaviour Dynamics. Age and gender information were obtained only from the 54 Introductory Psychology students, 28 females and 26 males. Mean age of t h i s group was 20.26 years, the mode was 19 years, and the range was 18 to 31 years. In a l l cases, students volunteered t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Materials The materials consisted of questionnaires containing unique 113 or ahared attributea worded in the negative (e.g., Pat no longer carea for Chria). Subjects were asked to indicate how l i k e l y i t waa that each event would decrease love or commitment. The questionnaires for the unique attributea were conatructed aa follows: For commitment, there were only 18 attributea remaining once the 21 ahared attributes and "love" were removed, while for love, there were 46 remaining a t t r i b u t e s (the 21 shared, plus "commitment" were extracted). Because the subjects task was to rate the impact of a vi o l a t i o n of both love and commitment attributes on either love or commitment, i t was necessary to include approximately the same number of love and commitment att r i b u t e s . (It did not seem l i k e a psychologically meaningful task to give subjects 46 unique love a t t r i b u t e s and only 16 commitment attributea and ask them to rate the impact of a v i o l a t i o n of each at t r i b u t e on commitment). Therefore, the love attributes were divided into three groups, with 15, 15 and 16 attributes per group to make the number comparable to the number of commitment a t t r i b u t e s . Each group of love attributes was then randomly interspersed among the commitment attributes (see Appendix K). Each one of the three versions of the unique attributes questionnaire was rated by 30 subjects for love, y i e l d i n g a t o t a l of 90 subjects. Each of the three versions also was rated by 30 subjects for commitment, which required another 90 subjects. The shared a t t r i b u t e s version consisted of the 21 a t t r i b u t e s love and commitment have in common, worded in the negative (see Appendix K). F i f t y - f o u r subjects received the shared a t t r i b u t e s 114 version of the questionnaire (.27 rated love; 27 rated commitment) . Procedure Subjects received a questionnaire t i t l e d "Relationship Events Questionnaire", which contained instructions and a description of a relationship that was depicted as both loving and committed. The questionnaire read as follows: This i s a simple study to f i n d out the e f f e c t s of various events on interpersonal relationships. Below you w i l l read a short story about two people who are involved in a close r e l a t i o n s h i p . You w i l l be asked to give your opinion of how certain events w i l l impact upon the r e l a t i o n s h i p . Keep in mind that we're interested in what you think w i l l happen, not what you think should happen. "Pat and Chris love each other and are commit-ted to one another. They began dating toward the end of t h e i r f i r s t year at U.B.C. and they w i l l both be graduating in the spring. Pat and Chris enjoy doing things together and frequently go to movies, sports events, out for dinner and so on. They also spend many evenings together just watching TV or v i s i t i n g with friends. Certain things could happen that would have l i t t l e or no impact on t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p . Other things could have a major impact". On the next page, you w i l l f i n d a l i s t of hypo-t h e t i c a l events. While most of these events probably 115 would have an impact on their relationahip, some probably would have a greater impact than others. For each one, think about the extent to which that event would cause a decrease i n LOVE [COMMITMENT] in Pat and Chris' relationship. If you think the event would have no impact on love [commitment], give i t a 1 which means "not at a l l l i k e l y " . If you think i t ' s extremely l i k e l y that an event would cause a decrease in love [commmitment] in the relat i o n s h i p , give i t a 9 which means "extremely l i k e l y " . A 5 would mean that the event would pro-bably have a moderate impact on love [commitment]. Please try and use the entire scale when making your judgments. Keep in mind that each event has nothing to do with the event before or a f t e r i t - -in other words, treat each event separately. For each version of the questionnaire, half of the subjects rated the impact of a v i o l a t i o n of the a t t r i b u t e s on love; the other half rated impact on commitment. Results The f i r s t set of analyses was concerned with the a t t r i b u t e s unique to love and commitment. (Results of the questionnaire containing the shared features of love and commitment were analyzed separately). Subjects' ratings were analyzed in the context of a 2X2X2 mixed analysis of variance with type of concept (love/commitment) and type of a t t r i b u t e (central/peripheral) as within-subject factors and type of 116 impact rating (love/commitment) as a between-subject fa c t o r . A s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t for type of attribute was predicted such that v i o l a t i o n s of central attributes should have a greater impact than v i o l a t i o n s of peripheral a t t r i b u t e s . Also, a three-factor interaction was expected between type of concept, type of a t t r i b u t e and type of impact rating . The central a t t r i b u t e s of love were expected to have a greater impact on ratings of love than on commitment, while the central a t t r i b u t e s of commitment were expected to have a greater impact on ratings of commitment than on love; peripheral attributes were expected to have generally leas impact. There was no main e f f e c t for type of impact rating, F <1. It made absolutely no difference whether subjects were asked to rate impact on love or impact on commitment. There was a main e f f e c t for type of concept, F(1,178)=15.75, p_ <.001, such that o v e r a l l , love attributes received higher impact ratings than did commitment attributes (mean rating 6.31 vs 6.13). The predicted main e f f e c t f o r type of att r i b u t e was obtained, F(1,178)=461.35, p_ <.001, such that v i o l a t i o n s of central attributes were seen to have a greater impact than v i o l a t i o n s of peripheral a t t r i b u t e s (6.89 vs. 5.55). There was also an unanticipated s i g n i f i c a n t Concept by Attribute i n t e r a c t i o n , F(1,178)=43.86, p_< .001 (see Appendix L). Simple e f f e c t s analyses showed that for love a t t r i b u t e s , central features received much higher mean impact ratings than peripheral features (7.15 vs. 5.48), F (1,178) =558 .14, p_ <.001. For commitment att r i b u t e s , the same pattern was obtained, but the difference was less 117 pronounced--the mean impact rating for central features was 6.64 compared to 5.63 for peripheral features, F<1,178)=203.13, p_ < .001. A second set of analyses examined the at t r i b u t e s shared by love and commitment. F i r s t , t-tests were done, comparing the mean c e n t r a l i t y r ating for love and for commitment of each a t t r i b u t e . The purpose was to enable c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of each att r i b u t e as either more central to love than to commitment, more central to commitment than to love, or no difference. It was expected that a v i o l a t i o n of attributea with a mean c e n t r a l i t y rating s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher on love than on commitment would have a greater e f f e c t on love than on commitment; that a t t r i b u t e s that were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t for the two concepts would not exert a d i f f e r e n t i a l impact on love and on commitment; and that a v i o l a t i o n of attributes that were higher on commitment than on love would be seen as causing a greater decrease in commitment than in love. T-tests between the c e n t r a l i t y ratings of the shared features of love and commitment revealed that of the 21 features, 14 received s i g n f i c a n t l y higher c e n t r a l i t y ratings for love than for commitment, 6 features did not receive s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t c e n t r a l i t y ratings, and only for one feature, " r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " , was the mean c e n t r a l i t y r ating higher for commitment than for love. This l e f t only one feature in the "commitment greater than love" c e l l . Therefore, i t was not appropriate to conduct the analysis of variance. Because the format of the shared featurea queationnaire waa 118 Identical to the unique features questionnaire, i t was possible to treat these data as another version of the questionnaire. Thus, the two data sets were combined and analyzed exactly as the unique features data were analyzed e a r l i e r . These r e s u l t s p a r a l l e l e d those obtained for the unique features. Again, i t made no difference whether subjects were asked to rate impact on love or impact on commitment, F <1. There was a main e f f e c t for type of concept, F(1,232)=4.33, p_ <.05, such that o v e r a l l , love at t r i b u t e s received higher mean impact ratinga than did commitment a t t r i b u t e s (6.29 vs. 6.21). The predicted main e f f e c t for type of a t t r i b u t e was obtained, FC1,232) =592.00, p_ <.001, such that v i o l a t i o n s of central a t t r i b u t e s were seen to have a greater impact than v i o l a t i o n s of peripheral attributes <6.90 vs. 5.60). A s i g n i f i c a n t Concept by Attribute interaction was again obtained, F< 1,232) =62.55, p_< .001 (see Appendix L). Simple e f f e c t s analyses revealed that for love attributes, central features received higher mean impact ratings than peripheral features (7.09 vs. 5.48), F < 1,232) =844.04, p_ <.001. For commitment a t t r i b u t e s , t h i s difference was less pronounced, (6.71 vs. 5.71), although 3 t i l l s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , F<1,232)=319.42, p_ <.001. Despite c e r t a i n nuances in these data, the predicted p r o t o t y p i c a l i t y e f f e c t s were strongly supported. Thus, for the everyday person, a loss of a sense of caring, t r u s t , honesty, respect, or a f e e l i n g that friendship i s no longer a part of the rela t i o n s h i p are a l l considered to seriously threaten or undermine the extent to which a relat i o n s h i p i s seen as loving. 1 1 9 Whether or not one stops f e e l i n g euphoric, gazing at one's partner, seeing only the partner's good q u a l i t i e s or no longer f e e l s dependent on the partner i s not diagnostic of diminishing love i n the rel a t i o n s h i p . Commitment in a relationship i s seriously endangered by d i s l o y a l t y , f a i l i n g to l i v e up to one's word, unfaithfulness, no longer accepting the relat i o n s h i p as a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and so fo r t h . Feeling discontent, insecure, not constantly thinking about one's partner, etc. do not d i r e c t l y threaten the l e v e l of commitment in a relationahip. The mean impact that v i o l a t i o n a of each of the love attributea had on love appear in Table 7. Theae ratinga were alao correlated with c e n t r a l i t y , r=.85 (.74 based on ranks). The mean impact ratings of v i o l a t i o n s of commitment a t t r i b u t e s on commitment also appear in Table 7. Mean impact rating that v i o l a t i o n s of commitment had on commitment correlated .58 with c e n t r a l i t y (.42 for ranka). Discussion Rating Impact of Love vs. Impact on Commitment It did not make any difference whether subjects were asked to rate the impact of v i o l a t i o n s of love attributes on love or on commitment, nor i f aubjecta were aaked to rate the impact of vio l a t i o n a of commitment attributea on commitment or on love. There are aeveral possible interpretations for t h i s f i n d i n g . One potential explanation i s that seeing both love and commitment attri b u t e s "activated" both the love and the commitment 120 prototypes, so that subjects rated v i o l a t i o n s of love attributes in terms of t h e i r impact on love and v i o l a t i o n s of commitment attributes in terms of the i r impact on commitment. In other words, seeing features may be so powerful in evoking the appropriate category label that the actual judgment the subject i s asked to make becomes irr e l e v a n t . The other plausible interpretation i s that love and commitment are r e a l l y so similar that even in the situ a t i o n where subjects were presented with only unique at t r i b u t e s , they s t i l l were unable to distinguish between love and commitment. One potential way of resolving this issue might be to make type of impact rating a within-subject rather than a between-subject variable. The rat i o n a l e for not doing so i n i t i a l l y was that t h i s might a r t i f i c i a l l y force apart the love and commitment ratings, because there would be an i m p l i c i t demand f o r subjects not to give the same response for both love and commitment. However, i t may be the case that making type of impact rating a between-subject variable was too conservative a t e s t of the hypothesis that unique attributes of love and commitment would exert an independent impact on the concepts of love and commitment,respectively. This may be p a r t i c u l a r l y true i f the conjecture about prototype activation overriding experimental instructions has any v a l i d i t y . In the conclusion of his chapter on love and commitment, Kelley discusses the implications of the fuzzineas and overlapping nature of the concepts of love and commitment for communication and a t t r i b u t i o n in close r e l a t i o n s h i p s . He states 121 that, "Expressions of love can be e a s i l y confused with expressions of commitment" (p.314). He goes on to say that the display of ardent affection stimulated by passionate f e e l i n g s , for example, can be mistaken aa an avowal of obligation to adhere to the partner. Kelley's auccinct statement i s consistent with the r e s u l t s of t h i s atudy--aubjecta f a i l e d to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between the two concepta. Hia statement also captures the importance of the implications of the prototype structure of these concepts for interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Impact of Violationa of Love vs. Commitment Attributes There was a s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t for type of concept, such that, o v e r a l l , v i o l a t i o n s of love attributes were seen to have a greater impact than v i o l a t i o n s of commitment a t t r i b u t e s . As was discussed in Study Two, love may be a more s a l i e n t concept than commitment for college-age subjects. On the other hand, as was also mentioned e a r l i e r , the larger number of love featurea may e l i c i t more polarized, or extreme, ratings. However, i f one takes t h i s r e s u l t at face value, i t would seem that the everyday person i s more w i l l i n g to tolerate deviations in commitment, or at least perceives such v i o l a t i o n s as less devastating for the relationship than v i o l a t i o n s of love. Effect of Violations of Central and Peripheral Features F i n a l l y , as expected, v i o l a t i o n s of central attributes had a bigger impact than did v i o l a t i o n s of peripheral attributea. When one examinee the central attributea of love and commitment, one 122 discovers a r i c h source of information about what the layperson uses as s p e c i f i c clues in judging the decline of interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p s . For example, the central love statement "Chris and Pat's rel a t i o n s h i p i s no longer characterized by caring" received a mean impact rating of 7.63 (on love) while the peripheral statement "When asked about her r e l a t i o n s h i p with Pat, Chris says she no longer experiences an increase in heartrate" received a mean rating of 4.10. S i m i l a r l y , for commitment, the fact that Pat no longer l i v e s up to his word had a large negative impact (mean rating of 7.19), while being t o l d that Pat no longer thinks about Chris a l l the time exerted a n e g l i g i b l e influence (mean rating of 3.67). As was mentioned in Study Two, the features of love that seem to match descriptions of companionate love are generally central to love (e.g., t r u s t , caring, f r i e n d s h i p ) . I t i s interesting to note that these features, i f v i o l a t e d , were seen as causing a decrease in love. On the other hand, the more passionate-like features of love are largely peripheral to love, and these features, i f violated, were not perceived as having a a i g n i f i c a n t negative impact on love. When distinguishing between passionate and companionate love, H a t f i e l d and Walster (1978) comment that, "Passionate love i s a f r a g i l e f l o w e r - - i t w i l t s in time. Companionate love i s a sturdy evergreen; i t t h r i v e s with contact" (p.125). S i m i l a r l y , Cunningham and A n t i l l (1981) describe the development of love as beginning with eros, or passionate love. They maintain that increasing interdependence brings to l i g h t genuine c o n f l i c t s of i n t e r e s t which must be 123 resolved in order f o r the rel a t i o n s h i p to progress further. These authors state that, "Acceptance of the differences which inevitably appear may dampen the flames of passionate or romantic love but leave a mature companionate love in i t s place" (p.35) This view of passionate love aa a transient aspect of the early stages of a loving r e l a t i o n s h i p which then becomes supplanted by a more enduring, companionate love i s consistent with the r e s u l t s obtained here. Viol a t i o n s of the more passionate-like featurea of love were aeen aa r e l a t i v e l y inconaequential, while v i o l a t i o n a of the more companionate-1ike aapecta of love were aeen to aerioualy undermine the relationship. Perceptions of Causes vs. Actual Causes of Relationship  Deterioration It i s important to keep in mind that t h i s study has been concerned with what the layperson perceives as important in determining whether or not a rel a t i o n s h i p continues to be loving or committed. Whether these are factors that actually cause relationship breakdown i s another question e n t i r e l y . There i s a l i t e r a t u r e which suggests that people are unable to provide causal explanations f o r events that occur in t h e i r l i v e s . Nisbett and Wilson (1977) reviewed a number of studies in which aubjecta were asked to account for the cause of t h e i r behavior (which had been experimentally manipulated). They concluded that the accuracy of subjective reports i a ao poor that any 124 Introspective access people possess i s not s u f f i c i e n t to produce correct or r e l i a b l e r e s u l t s . Instead of admitting that we do not know why we behaved as we did in a cert a i n s i t u a t i o n , Nisbett and Wilson argue that we invent a plausible story. The kinds of issues raised by Nisbett and Wilson are often directed at personal relationships researchers when they ask subjects what caused t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p to break up. Duck (1982) comments that, " I t i s noted that such accounts may r e f l e c t bias, i d e a l i z a t i o n , s e l f - i n t e r e s t and so on." He maintains that, "What i s missed i s the f a c t that such processes are not mere accidents or epiphenomena; they are probably c r u c i a l to the persons coming to terms with r e l a t i o n s h i p d i s s o l u t i o n . . . (p.27). Duck argues that such a t t r i b u t i o n a should be examined very seriously, and the i r underlying dynamics explored in order to discover what they t e l l us about the process of rel a t i o n s h i p d i s s o l u t i o n . In summary, i t i s argued here that the phenomonology of the persons involved in a r e l a t i o n s h i p should be a c r u c i a l consideration i n the study of the d i s s o l u t i o n of r e l a t i o n s h i p s . The layperson's prototype of what a loving and committed relationship i s consists of a very r i c h , very complex co n s t e l l a t i o n of features--some of which are considered more important or central than others. This kind of monitoring of what i s and i s not an important indicator of demise in love or commitment that goes on by the layperson deserves our attention--both i n terms of learning more about the dynamics of interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p s from the layperson's perspective and i n terms of the c l i n i c a l implications of these warning signs. 125 In conclusion. Studies Five and Six represent a novel application of the prototype approach to the domain of interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Although these studies are s t i l l confined to what goes on in people's minds, they demonstrate that the prototype structure of the concepts of love and commitment i s relevant to laypersons' perceptions of the kinds of changes in the features or interpersonal q u a l i t i e s of relationships that signal a move toward or away from greater love or commitment. The gradient of c e n t r a l i t y of the features of love and commitment waa c l e a r l y r e f l e c t e d in subjects' responses to the kinds of events that contributed to enhanced and diminished love and commitment in a r e l a t i o n s h i p . Thus, the prototypes of love and commitment do not ex i s t in i s o l a t i o n , as purely semantic concepts. What these studies have shown i s that the prototype structure of these concepts i s apparent in the everyday view of the dynamics of interpersonal relationahipa. An important d i r e c t i o n for future reaearch i a to inveatigate how, i f at a l l , the prototype structure of the concepts of love and commitment translates into the study of actual people in actual r e l a t i o n s h i p s . For example, a r e p l i c a t i o n of Study Five i s i n order, where, rather than making judgments about various relationships, subjects would be people involved in these types of r e l a t i o n s h i p s and the judgments they would be asked to make would pertain to these actual r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Also, subjects who are i n loving and committed relationships, whose relationships are deteriorating could be asked to provide an account of the kinds of changes in the r e l a t i o n s h i p that led to t h i s appraisal. 126 GENERAL DISCUSSION The aim of the research reported here was to test the f e a s i b i l i t y of viewing the concepts of love and commitment from a prototype perspective. The f i r s t major issue addressed was: Are love and commitment pro t o t y p i c a l l y organized concepts? In other words, do these concepts have a prototype structure such that some features are seen as more central to each concept than others. The second major question concerned the relationship between the laypersons' prototypes of love and commitment: To what extent (and/or i n what ways) are these concepts associated in people's minds? The answers to these questions w i l l be discussed here. An analysis of the concepts of love and commitment also i n v i t e s a consideration of several other, related issues. Why study the layperson's view of these concepts? Is i t meaningful to talk about a general concept of love or of commitment? How are types of these concepts seen from a prototype perspective? F i n a l l y , the c l i n i c a l implications of t h i s research are discussed, followed by a consideration of future research d i r e c t i o n s . Are Love and Commitment Prototypically Organized Concepts? The prototype structure of a concept i s demonstrated through a convergence of operations. The f i r s t step in t h i s project was to ask respondents to l i s t the features of the concepts of love and of commitment. In Study Two, subjects were asked to rate the attributes of love and commitment according to degree of c e n t r a l i t y . It was expected that t h i s prototype structure would 127 a f f e c t performance on various tasks. The dependent measures employed were: 1. Free l i s t i n g of features. 2. C e n t r a l i t y ratings. 3. Memory for central and peripheral features. 4. Use of hedges in natural language as a r e f l e c t i o n of prototype structure. 5. A p p l i c a b i l i t y of central and peripheral a t t r i b u t e s to types of loving and committed relationships. 6. Impact of vi o l a t i o n s of central and peripheral a t t r i b u t e s . Subjects i n Study One were able to generate features for love and commitment, and subjects in Study Two found i t meaningful to rate these featurea for c e n t r a l i t y . Subjects in Study Three f a l s e l y remembered having seen ce n t r a l , but not peripheral, features that had not been presented. Subjects in Study Four rated sentences in which central features were hedged as more peculiar sounding than sentences in which peripheral features were hedged. In Study Five, both peripheral, and especially c e n t r a l , features were rated as being more applicable aa r e l a t i o n s h i p s increased in love or commitment. F i n a l l y , in Study Six, v i o l a t i o n s of central features were seen as contributing to s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater decreaaea in love or commitment than v i o l a t i o n s of peripheral features. Thus, regardleaa of the method used, central features were aeen aa more a i g n i f i c a n t than peripheral. It might aeem that in each atudy there waa an i m p l i c i t 128 demand for subjects to d i f f e r e n t i a t e items along a dimension of p o t o t y p i c a l i t y . For example, in Study Four, subjects were t o l d that "For some of these sentences the use of a hedge i a appropriate..." and were perhaps led to believe that some sentences should sound more peculiar than others. However, i t i s important to keep in mind that even though subjects were asked to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between items, there was no suggestion given as to which might be the most central and peripheral items. Moreover, these demands were absent in Study Three, where the dependent measure was memory. In that study subjects were simply asked to l i s t e n to the statements. Fehr and Russell (1984) demonstrated that the same prototype structure emerges regardless of whether subjects are asked to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between items on a questionnaire (as in some of the present studies), whether they are asked Yes/No questions and the dependent measure i s per cent agreement, or whether subjects' reaction time to prototypical and nonprototypical atatements i s used. Thus, i t i s unlikely that subjects' responses across these s i x studies are a t t r i b u t a b l e to demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n the experimental instructions as opposed to r e f l e c t i n g the prototype structure of these concepts. In addition to looking at the results of these studies i n d i v i d u a l l y , i t was important to determine to what extent these findings converge. In p a r t i c u l a r , i t was possible to correlate the following measures: c e n t r a l i t y ratings, frequency of free l i s t i n g , naturalness ratings, and ratings of the impact of v i o l a t i o n s of features. These correlations appear in Table 8. An 129 examination of Table 8 reveala that c e n t r a l i t y correlates s i g n i f i c a n t l y with frequency of free l i s t i n g , p e c u l i a r i t y ratings of sentences containing hedges, and ratings of the impact of v i o l a t i o n s of central and peripheral a t t r i b u t e s . In addition, these measures tend to i n t e r c o r r e l a t e f a i r l y well, especially for love. If love and commitment were definable in the c l a s s i c a l sense, the features should not have varied in the extent to which they came to mind. Moreover, i t would have been meaningless for subjects to rate features for degree of c e n t r a l i t y , because within the c l a s s i c a l view, each feature should be equally necessary in defining the concept. S i m i l a r l y , i f each feature was equally central to a concept, one would not expect that c e r t a i n features would be more prone to memory biases than others. Nor would one expect that hedgea would sound natural when prefacing some features, but not others. When asked about the factors associated with both increases and decreases in relationship closeness, again, from a c l a s s i c a l perspective, certain featurea would not be aeen aa playing a more central role than others. Based on the convergence of r e s u l t s obtained across theae studies, i t appears that the concepts of love and commitment are more amenable to a prototype, than a c l a s s i c a l , conceptualization. Because l i t t l e research has been done on t h i s topic, these studies were highly exploratory. And yet the r e s u l t s could hardly have been more encouraging. The predictions derived from Roach's theory worked well when extrapolated to and 130 tested in the domain of love and commitment in interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p s . The ease with which love and commitment lent themselves to a prototype conceptualization contrasts with t h e i r apparent resistance to be c l a s s i c a l l y defined. It would appear that attempts to c l a s s i c a l l y define the everyday words "love" and "commitment" are unlikely to succeed in the future. Yet the rea l gain from evidence uncovered here concerns not the e x p l i c i t theory of experts, but the i m p l i c i t theory of the layperson. This evidence provides a new and interesting picture of how people think about and use these concepts. Why Study the Layperson's Conception of Love and Commitment? Studies 5 and 6 were seen as an important, necessary extension of the prototype approach. These studies showed that the way people think about the concepts of love and commitment actually translates into how they viewed the dynamics of interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p s . The conceptions of love and commitment held by people are probably important in the way they act and f e e l in t h e i r closest r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Presumably, an adolescent g i r l ' s b e l i e f s about love and commitment determine what she looks for in a dating r e l a t i o n s h i p , how she assesses whether she i s t r u l y in love with a p a r t i c u l a r partner, and i f ahe wants to be committed to him (e.g., Schwartz & Merten, 1980). S i m i l a r l y , a husband's view of love i a apt to a f f e c t what he does in his attempts to show love for his wife, and her understanding of love w i l l a f f e c t how successful his attempts 131 w i l l be. Aa Kelley argues: The s c i e n t i f i c study of love must take these Clay] conceptions into account, and they in turn must be traced back to the more d i s t a l causes--the c u l t u r a l norms and models of love--that they r e f l e c t (p.271). A prototype approach l a one way of analyzing the laypersons' conceptiona of love and commitment. The prototype analyais of love and commitment conducted here not only confirms the assumption that the layperson's view of love and commitment af f e c t s his or her view of what goes on in interpersonal relationships, but demonstrated that i t does so i n very s p e c i f i c and predictable ways. The everyday view of love and commitment i s r i c h and complex—the features which comprise these concepts are ordered along a gradient of c e n t r a l i t y . Thia prototype atructure i 3 r e f l e c t e d in subjects' answers to questions auch as which features are i n d i c a t i v e of a close r e l a t i o n s h i p , and which features, i f violated, seriously harm a re l a t i o n s h i p . However, the prototype approach i s also subject to c r i t i c i s m s of the s c i e n t i f i c investigation of lay concepts. Kelley expresses c e r t a i n reservations about the study of the layperson's view of concepts l i k e love and commitment. In his words: Perhaps, most important i s the f a c t that reliance on the common usage of love, aa either a descrip-t i v e or explanatory concept l i m i t a our analysis to a p a r t i c u l a r time and place (p.272). 132 The extent to which prototypes o£ concepts l i k e love and commitment are bounded by history and culture has not been investigated. Rosch (1973) studied color categories in a group of Stone Age people, the Dani, a culture which does not have color terms fo r hue. She found that color values which were prototypical of Western color categories were learned more quickly and remembered better than nonprototypical ones. Whether or not these findings with perceptual categories l i k e color extend to s o c i a l categories l i k e love and commitment i s tenuous. Certainly the concept of love has undergone some major transformations across time. According to Brehm (19B5), the ancient Greeks conceived of passionate, romantic love as undesirable torment. The Romans saw love as a game--to be played with great d i l i g e n c e , but not to be taken seriously. With the advent of courtly love in France in the twelfth century, a view of love developed that was very i d e a l i s t i c , very elegant, and at least, t h e o r e t i c a l l y , nonsexual. For the next 500 years, i t was the common assumption that passionate love, though desirable and enobling, was e s s e n t i a l l y unattainable. It was not u n t i l the 17th and 18th centuries that Europeans, e s p e c i a l l y the English, began to believe that a "happy ending" was possible for romantic passion i n the union of love with marriage. There i s also some evidence which suggests that love may be viewed d i f f e r e n t l y in d i f f e r e n t cultures. Triandis, K i l t y , Shanmugan, Tanaka and V a s s i l i o u (1972) compared the perceived antecedents and consequents of love across four cultures: American, Greek, Indian, and Japanese. While a l l cultures agreed 133 that a f f e c t i o n and t r u s t were antecedents of love, they disagreed on other antecedents. The consequents of love included friends, happiness, and joy i n most cultures. Again, there was disagreement on other consequents. Comparable studies have not been done for commitment. However, i t seems clear that an analysis of the everyday concepts of love and commitment can never be history and culture free. What i s less clear i s whether a history-and culture-free analysis i s necessarily a primary goal of the s c i e n t i f i c study of love and commitment. In f a c t , Forgas and Dobosz (1980) c a l l e d for "a way to survey and represent the relationship prototypes which are practised within a p a r t i c u l a r subcultural milieu" (p.663), suggesting that they do not regard the confinement of thei r research to a p a r t i c u l a r time and place a shortcoming of thei r work. Nevertheless, the c r i t i c i s m that the prototypes of love and commitment, as uncovered in Studies One to Four, are not history and culture free i s v a l i d . However, just becauae the contents of a prototype may vary, does not neceaaarily inva l i d a t e the prototype approach. The prototype atructure of natural language categoriea and t h e i r e f f e c t a are l i k e l y to be wideapread. The reaulta of Studiea Five and Six caat a yet another l i g h t on t h i a iaaue. What theae atudiea ahow i a that theae time-and place-bound prototypea can be used to predict what the everyday person sees as a marker ind i c a t i n g the degree to which s/he i s interpersonally involved with others. The extent to which a pa r t i c u l a r relationahip i a aeen aa a loving or a committed 134 rela t i o n s h i p i s determined by which featurea are applicable to or c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the relationship. These prototypes also allow one to predict the sorts of events that are taken as indicators of r e l a t i o n s h i p breakdown. From an analysis of the layperson's h i s t o r i c a l l y and c u l t u r a l l y bound view of love and commitment, we can learn general p r i n c i p l e s about how the dynamics of interpersonal relationships are viewed. The benefits of such an analysis by far outweigh the costs incurred in terms of time and place l i m i t a t i o n s . Relation between the Concepts of Love and Commitment An additional purpose of the studies reported here was to further explore the r e l a t i o n between the concepts of love and commitment. The four models of the r e l a t i o n between love and commitment were that: 1. the concepts are completely independent; 2. the concepts are synonomous; 3. commitment i s a component of love; and 4. the concepts are largely overlapping, but p a r t i a l l y independent. There are several findings across the six studies which speak to t h i s issue. These include: --Study 1: love and commitment have both shared and unique attributes --Study 1: love shares roughly one t h i r d of i t s features with commitment, while commitment shares half of i t s features with love --Study 1: the proportion of subjects who mentioned commitment when asked to write about love ranged from 11.53 to 18.18* (depending on whether subjects wrote only about love or 135 about both concepts), while 20* of the subjects l i s t e d love as an a t t r i b u t e of commitment --Study 2: love was considered a central feature of commitment; commitment was considered a central feature of love --Study 2: the shared attributes of love and commitment are considered more central to each concept than are the unique attributes --Study 2: mean c e n t r a l i t y ratings of the shared features of love and commitment correlated .75 --Study 3: among subjects who saw featurea of love, 13.3* f a l s e l y r e c a l l e d having seen "love", while 5* thought they had seen "commitment"; for commitment, 16.7* thought they had seen "commitment" and 18.3* thought they had seen "love" --Study 5: i n the f i r s t phase, subjects' ratings of 53 types of relationships as to how loving or how committed they were correlated .85 --Study 6: i t made no difference whether subjects were asked to rate the impact on love or commitment of v i o l a t i o n s of either features of love or commitment. Which of these four models seem closest to the laypersons' conception? If the hypothesis that love and commitment are completely independent concepts waa true, one would expect that: --love and commitment would not ahare any featurea --when aaked to write about one of the concepta, the other concept would not be mentioned --love would not be conaidered a central feature of commitment, and vice-veraa 136 --subjects would not f a l s e l y r e c a l l having seen the other concept in a memory experiment --ratings of how loving and committed various r e l a t i o n s h i p s are would not be highly correlated --ratings of the impact of vio l a t i o n a of the featurea of one concept would be independent of ratinga of the impact of vio l a t i o n a of the attributea of the other. Clearly t h i a pattern of r e s u l t s was not obtained here. In Sternberg's theory of love, commitment i s a component of love, along with intimacy and passion. If the layperson's view of the concepts of love and commitment maps onto Sternberg's model, one would expect that: --commitment should share a l l of i t s features with love, while love would also poaaeaa unique features --when asked to write about commitment, subjects should mention love; when asked to write about love, fewer subjects should mention commitment --commitment would be considered a central feature of love, although love would not necessarily be considered a feature of commitment - - c e n t r a l i t y ratings of the shared features of love and commitment would be perfectly correlated - - i n a memory study, subjects who saw commitment att r i b u t e a would think they had aeen love attributea, but aubjecta who aaw love attributea would not necessarily think they had seen commitment ( i t would be just as l i k e l y that they would think they had seen featurea of intimacy or paaaion) 137 --subjects ratings of how loving or committed d i f f e r e n t relationships are would be moderately correlated --subjects would not d i f f e r e n t i a t e between the impact of vio l a t i o n s of commitment attributes on love versus commitment, but would to some extent discriminate between impact of vio l a t i o n s of love att r i b u t e s on love versus commitment. Again, these predictions do not f i t very well with the data obtained here. This leaves two models: the view that love and commitment are v i r t u a l l y the same, and the view that they are related but p a r t i a l l y independent concepta. If love and commitment are id e n t i c a l concepta one would expect: --love and commitment would ahare v i r t u a l l y a l l the aame featurea --when asked to write about love, aubjecta would spontaneously mention commitment and vice-veraa - - c e n t r a l i t y ratinga of the featurea of love and commitment would be perfectly correlated --an equal number of aubjecta would f a l a e l y r e c a l l having aeen "love" and "commitment" in a memory taak --aubjecta' ratinga of how loving and committed d i f f e r e n t relationahipa are would be almoat pe r f e c t l y correlated - - i t would make no difference whether aubjecta were aaked to rate the impact of vio l a t i o n a of either concept on the other concept. On the other hand, i f , as Kelley suggests, these concepts are p a r t i a l l y independent but largely overlapping, one would 138 expect that: --love and commitment would posaeaa both shared and unique featurea --when asked to write about both love and commitment, the other concept should come to mind in some, but c e r t a i n l y not a l l , caaea --the shared features of love and commitment would be considered more central to each concept than the unique features - - i n a memory study, some subjects would f a l a e l y r e c a l l the name of the other concept --measures of how loving and committed certain r e l a t i o n s h i p s are would be moderately to highly correlated --subjects should be able to d i s t i n g u i s h between the impact of v i o l a t i o n s of love versus commitment features on love versus commitment Certainly the notion of considerable overlap i s well supported by these data. In f a c t , the high correlations between mean c e n t r a l i t y ratings of the shared features of love and commitment, and between ratings of love and commitment in d i f f e r e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s , and the f a c t that i t makes no difference whether subjects are asked to rate the impact of v i o l a t i o n s of love or commitment attributes on love or commitment, does r a i s e a c r i t i c a l issue, namely to what extent can we refer to these concepts as even p a r t i a l l y independent in l i g h t of c o r r e l a t i o n s of t h i a magnitude? When one looks to the l i t e r a t u r e for other empirical findings relevant to t h i s issue, the r e s u l t s that love and commitment are very cl o s e l y related 139 emerges with considerable consistency. For example, Lund (1985) created a scale designed to measure commitment as a construct d i s t i n c t from love. After eliminating half of the items because they correlated .70 with scores on Rubin's Love Scale, scores on the revised scale s t i l l correlated .67 with scores on the Love Scale. In a v a l i d a t i o n study, t h i a c o r r e l a t i o n was .74 at time 1 and .76 at time 2. S i m i l a r l y , H a t f i e l d and Sprecher (1985) recently developed a passionate love scale. Scores on t h e i r scale correlated .87 for males and .73 for females with scores on a meaaure of commitment. Correlations of t h i s magnitude are somewhat sur p r i s i n g , because i t i a generally believed that companionate love and commitment are more c l o s e l y related than are passionate love and commitment. What i a clear from both these studies, and from the r e s u l t s obtained here i s that love and commitment are very clos e l y related and i n f a c t , correlations between measures of these concepts seem high enough to question the assumption of p a r t i a l independence. In defense of the notion of p a r t i a l independence, the r e s u l t s of Study One showed that each concept possesses a set of unique featurea. Also, a majority of respondents do not mention love when asked about commitment, and vice-versa, suggesting that the concepts are somewhat independent. S i m i l a r l y , a majority of subjects do not erroneously think they have seen love when presented with the features of commitment, and vice-versa. In Study Five, the apparent degree of overlap may have been a r t i f i c i a l l y magnified by the finding that ratings of 140 d i f f e r e n t typea of relationahipa according to degree of love or commitment correlated .85. Thia c o r r e l a t i o n may be exceaaively high becauae the relationahip typea to be rated included the Forgaa and Doboaz (1980) l i a t , which aa Kelley pointed out, f a i l e d to include relationahipa that diacriminated between love and commitment. Even though the few itema which were included to meaaure love and commitment aa d i s t i n c t concepta aeemd to do so, they were too few i n number to exert much of an impact on the co r r e l a t i o n . In conclusion, Kelley'a point of view on the r e l a t i o n between the concepta of love and commitment aeema to be moat conaiatent with the data on the everyday view of the concepta of love and commitment obtained here. A question that can be asked i s whether the methodology employed here waa biaaed toward finding that love and commitment are overlapping concepta. It might seem that a prototype analyais i a necessarily skewed toward finding overlap, because within t h i a view, concepta are pictured aa having overlapping, blurry boundariea. However, an inspection of the methodology employed suggests than such an accusation i s unfounded. For one, the subjects who generated the features of these concepts were given an open-ended format. Further, i t was not possible for aubjecta who generated featurea for only one concept to be led into H a t i n g ahared featurea. Thua, i t waa e n t i r e l y poaaible that two completely d i f f e r e n t l i s t s of features could have been generated for the two concepta, or that the features of one concept could have been completely subaumed by the featurea of the other. In f a c t , 141 Horowitz et a l . (1982) reported that, in t h e i r research, the features of loneliness were almost e n t i r e l y subsumed by the features of depression. These authors found for depression and loneliness what Sternberg theorized for love and commitment. Thus, a prototype analysis, does not necessarily y i e l d the finding that two concepts overlap. Untangling the love-commitment r e l a t i o n i s reminiscent of attempts to unravel the r e l a t i o n between loneliness and depression. Weeks, Michela, Peplau and Bragg (1980) maintain that research on loneliness has been hampered by i t s strong association with depression. They point out that the two states frequently co-occur, and that measures of the two states are subs t a n t i a l l y correlated. The i n a b i l i t y to manipulate experimentally loneliness or depression makes i t d i f f i c u l t to i s o l a t e the causal influence of one on the other. In a novel attempt at dealing with t h i s issue, the authors combined a longtitudinal design with structural equation methodology. They administered measures of depression and loneliness to undergraduates at two d i f f e r e n t times, separated by f i v e weeks. Their r e s u l t s indicated that loneliness and depression were correlated but c l e a r l y d i f f e r e n t constructs: neither was a d i r e c t cause of the other, although both probably share common or i g i n s . Both were highly stable over the f i v e week period. Probably a s i m i l a r conclusion can be reached regarding people's conceptiona of love and commitment. These concepts are associated in people's minds. In everyday l i f e , events do not occur as orthogonally as in 2X2 s o c i a l psychological 142 experiments. Nonetheless, when examined c a r e f u l l y , differences can be found, and under limited conditions, theae differences have a major impact. A General Concept of Love and of Commitment: Fact or Fiction? This brings to mind another iaaue, namely how uaeful i a i t to atudy the layperson's view of a general concept of love or commitment? The love one has for one's partner, a close f r i e n d , a parent, or a c h i l d , and the commitment one f e e l s toward these people seem rather d i f f e r e n t i n nature. Is i t meaningful to ask people about love in general, or commitment in general? The f a c t that our subjects were able to l i s t featurea of a generic concept of love or commitment without any apparent d i f f i c u l t y , and that they found i t meaningful to rate the c e n t r a l i t y of each feature suggests that i t i s . This notion i s corroborated i n studies which compare the factor structure of love across types of r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Swensen (1972) administered h i s Love Scale to nearly 600 respondents who completed the scale with respect to f i v e d i f f e r e n t persons: father, mother, closest s i b l i n g , closest same-sex f r i e n d , and closest opposite-sex f r i e n d (defined as one's spouse for married respondents). These reaponaea were factor analyzed and aix factora were extracted: verbal expreaaion of feelinga, aelf-diacloaure, nonmaterial evidence of love, feelinga that had not been verbally expreaaed, material evidence of love, and willingneaa to t o l e r a t e negative aapecta of the loved one. Intereatingly, a comparable, though not 143 i d e n t i c a l , factor pattern emerged regardless of the age of the respondents or the r e l a t i o n s h i p being rated. Thus the structure of love for one's parents, s i b l i n g s , friends and so on was s i m i l a r . What d i f f e r e d was the amount of love expressed in the various relationships, with the greatest amount of love being expressed for the c l o s e s t opposite-sex f r i e n d (spouse) and the least amount f e l t toward one's s i b l i n g s . Sternberg and Grajek (1984) replicated Swenaen's study using d i f f e r e n t measures of love. They, too, found that the structure of love did not d i f f e r consequentially from one close relationship to another. They extracted a general factor of love which they describe as "one of interpersonal communication, sharing, and support" (p. 327). Again, what varied was the amount of love expressed in the d i f f e r e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s . They concluded that, "whatever difference there may be among relationships, they are not primarily in the nature of the core of love that forms part of t h e i r basis" (p.327). Comparable studies looking at conceptions of commitment across d i f f e r e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s have not been done. However, as was mentioned e a r l i e r , subjects who participated in t h i s research were able to generate features of, and to respond to questions about, a general concept of commitment. Types of Love and Commitment While there i s j u s t i f i c a t i o n for studying a general concept of love or commitment, t h i s does not obviate the need for research on types of love and commitment. Generally, any 144 d i s t i n c t i o n a between typea are done ao at the conceptual l e v e l . Thua Beracheld and Walater diatingulah between paaaionate veraua companionate love; Johnson d i f f e r e n t i a t e s between peraonal commitment and atructural commitment; and ao on. Kelley (1983) auggeata one might want to draw a d i a t i n c t i o n between commitment to a relationahip and commitment to one's partner. The empirical study of typea of love and commitment haa received l i t t l e attention, p a r t i c u l a r l y for the concept of commitment. Research on t h i s topic i s warranted for several reasons. One context in which t h i s research ahould be done concerna aupport for a prototype categorization of the concept of emotion, in general. In th e i r atudy of emotion concepta, Fehr and Ruaaell (1984) took "emotion" to be the superordinate l e v e l , while categories l i k e "love", "anger", "happiness", "sadness", and so on were taken to be middle l e v e l . A shortcoming of t h i a research i s that although these studies supported the hypothesis that emotion i s a prototypi c a l l y organized concept, t h i s conclusion i s not e n t i r e l y warranted u n t i l i t has been demonstrated that p r o t o t y p i c a l i t y e f f e c t s alao occur at the aubordinate l e v e l . By chooaing the moat prototypical emotion, love, and r e p l i c a t i n g the Fehr and Russell studies, one can put forth the notion that emotion i a a prototype concept with greater confidence. Thia l i n e of reaearch would e n t a i l aaking aubjecta to l i a t typea, obtaining p r o t o t y p i c a l i t y ratinga of theae typea, and then conducting a seriea of atudiea demonstrating how the prototype atructure of theae concepts a f f e c t s performance on various tasks (e.g., memory, reaction time to v e r i f y category membership, 145 natural language use, and so on). A triangulation of these Measures would provide further insight into the prototype structure of the concept of love, and t h i s finding would, in turn, have implications for making claims about the prototype structure of emotion. The analysis just described f o r love i s also important for commitment, not ao much for supporting e a r l i e r claims about i t a structure, but for an elucidation of i t s types in i t s own r i g h t . There i s l i t t l e , i f any, research on types of commitment. While i t i s of interest to delineate types of love and commitment, one can also use prototype methodology to discover which kinds of love or commitment are considered most prot o t y p i c a l . In the same way that Fehr and Russell (1984) found that some types of emotions are more prototypical than others, some types of love and of commitment are presumably more prototypical than others. Which types are considered most prototypical may well be a function of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s s i g n i f i c a n t l i f e events at the time. Romantic love might be most central to the adolescent's conception, love for one's c h i l d most central to a parent's conception, and so on. Commitment to one's job may be most s a l i e n t to the ambitious businessman whose family comes second to his career. Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , there has been l i t t l e attention directed toward which features di s t i n g u i s h types of love or commitment from one another. In his discussion of the Sternberg and Grajek (1984) study, Sternberg (1986) suggests that the general factor of love that was extracted corresponds with the intimacy 146 component in his theory of love. He speculates that the passion and decision/commitment components may vary in d i f f e r e n t kinds of r e l a t i o n s h i p s . For example, the passion component probably plays a major r o l e i n romantic love, but not in love for one's parent. From a prototype perspective, one might expect that the central featurea would continue to be central across d i f f e r e n t types of love (commitment), while peripheral featurea might assume greater importance as a function of the kind of love (commitment) under consideration. For instance, "caring" may be considered central to love for one's lover, parent, s i b l i n g , and fr i e n d . However, "sexual passion", a peripheral feature of love, might be perceived as more central in romantic r e l a t i o n s h i p s . S i m i l a r l y , a peripheral feature l i k e " s a c r i f i c e " might assume greater importance in parental love. For commitment, " l o y a l t y " i s a central feature that could well pervade d i f f e r e n t types of commitment. The peripheral feature, "conscious decision" might well characterize commitment to one's romantic partner, while "hard work" might be central to commitment to one's employer. F i n a l l y , an i n t e r e s t i n g question for future investigation concerns the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the p r o t o t y p i c a l i t y of a category member and the c e n t r a l i t y of i t s features. Rosch and Hervis (1975) found that the most prototypical category members share the greatest number of features. Less t y p i c a l members have fewer att r i b u t e s i n common with other category members, and have more attr i b u t e s i n common with neighboring categories than do the prototypical cases. However, Roach and Hervis did not obtain c e n t r a l i t y ratings of the features they were studying. It may be 147 the case that the moat prototypical kinds of love and commitment alao possess the most central features. C l i n i c a l Implications of a Prototype Analysis of the Concepts of Love and Commitment The concepts of love and commitment are s a l i e n t in both happy and unhappy relationships. Swensen (1973) found that people who were d i a a a t i a f i e d with t h e i r marriages reported receiving leaa love from each other than did happy couplea. Foire and Swenaen (1977) replicated t h i a finding, and alao diacovered that couplea in distressed relationships reported receiving less love than they expected to receive. Laaswell and Laaswell (1976) suggested that a c r i t i c a l issue in marital therapy i s not the amount of love the partners f e e l for one another, but rather whether t h e i r conceptions of love are congruent. They present a case study in which the spouses subscribed to very d i f f e r e n t views of love. Aa Lasswell and Laaswell document, discrepancies in conceptions of love can lead to marital d i s t r e s s . They conclude that: People are l i k e l y to expect others to love them according to the meaning of love they themselves have rather than recognizing that others have invested t h i s sentiment with d i f f e r e n t meanings (p.214). Rephrased i n prototype terms, i n d i v i d u a l s in a re l a t i o n s h i p may have d i f f e r e n t prototypes for the concepts of love and commitment. From a c l i n i c a l perspective, i t would seem to be 148 worthwhile to highlight incongruenciea in partners' conceptiona of love and commitment. The role of the therapist would be to suggest ways of changing the partner's views to make them more congruent. It would also be worthwhile to use prototype methodology to e l i c i t conceptions of love and commitment held by people who are involved in distressed relationships and compare t h e i r conceptualization to those of couples enjoying s a t i s f y i n g , enduring r e l a t i o n s h i p s . It may be that one or both partners in a distressed relationship have a view of love or commitment that ia impossible to achieve, or are placing undue emphasis on aspects of love or commitment that are considered peripheral to nondistressed couples. Or, i t may be the caae that people in unhappy relationships are astutely aware of the "normal" view of love and commitment, and f e e l distressed because they r e a l i z e that t h e i r relationship i s lacking one or more of the central features of love or commitment. According to Kelley (1979), lack of respect i s one of the common causes of complaints about heterosexual partners. Interestingly, respect i s a central feature of both love and commitment. Future Directions Some future di r e c t i o n s have already been alluded to i n the previous sections. An obvious next step i s to r e p l i c a t e t h i s research with other groups of respondents, in order to discover how conceptions of love and commitment change across the lif e s p a n . The program of research reported here examined the 149 conceptions of love and commitment held by young adults, s p e c i f i c a l l y university students. According to Erikson (1963), the formation of intimate relationships i s the central developmental task during t h i s phase of the l i f e s p a n . Indeed, anecdotal evidence corroborates the notion that these students would be at Erikaon'a Intimacy vs. Isolation stage. For one, students in these studies seemed eager to p a r t i c i p a t e . Rarely did anyone refuse to complete a questionnaire, or to take part in a study. Generally, mass testing situations are beset with problems such aa a lack of privacy or f a i l u r e to take the taak serioualy (e.g., frienda joking and t a l k i n g , commenting on each other's questionnaire responses). In order to deal with potential d i f f i c u l t i e s of t h i s nature, a l l sessions were conducted during c l a s s t i m e — e i t h e r with the instructor of the class present, or in the context of a guest lecture given by the experimenter following the experimental task. Thus, in a l l cases, the task was conveyed as one to be taken seriously. Of greater si g n i f i c a n c e i s the fact that these students appeared to be keenly interested in p a r t i c i p a t i n g in these atudiea. In f a c t , in the vast majority of claases, a group of atudenta would remain after the c l a s s to ask more questions, o f f e r t h e i r theories of re l a t i o n s h i p s , and so on. Cl e a r l y , love and commitment issues were very relevant to t h e i r l i v e s . The few studies on the topic of changes in love and commitment across the lif e s p a n o f f e r a potpourri of findings. There i s support for the view that love declinea over time (Swenaen, Eakew, & Kohlhepp, 1981). Cimbalo, Faling, and Monaaw 150 (1976) found that while love declined, l i k i n g remained constant. F i l s i n g e r (1983) found that love remained constant over time, while l e v e l of l i k i n g for one's partner increased for wives. Traupmann and H a t f i e l d (1981), on the basis of comparisons across several studies, concluded that despite an o v e r a l l downward trend, l e v e l s of both companionate love and passionate love remained r e l a t i v e l y high across the l i f e s p a n . F i n a l l y , Knox (1970) found evidence for a c u r v i l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between stage of the l i f e cycle (beginning with late adolescence and ending with r e t i r e d married couples) and b e l i e f s in romantic love. While Munro and Adams (1976) re p l i c a t e d Knox's finding for romantic love, they also found a concomitant li n e a r increase in conjugal love. Reedy, Birren and Schaie (1981) compared the importance placed on various components of love by young, middle-aged, and older married couples. They concluded that over time, s a t i s f y i n g love relationships are less l i k e l y to be based on intense companionship, communication, and sexuality, and more l i k e l y to be based on l o y a l t y and commitment. Part of the d i f f i c u l t y in forming an o v e r a l l conclusion from these studies may stem from how love and commitment are conceptualized. Are romantic and passionate love the same thing? Are l i k i n g , conjugal love, and companionate love similar? A prototype analysis bypasses some of these problems. Subjects are not constrained by a particular d e f i n i t i o n or scale of love or commitment that may or may not be relevant to t h e i r experience. What the prototype studies have shown, without exception, i s 151 that the layperson i s able to produce a complex, well-elaborated account of his/her view of a concept. Moreover, going the second step and obtaining c e n t r a l i t y ratings of the features yie l d s a further increment in knowledge--one then discovers which features are seen as most ce n t r a l . This information lends i t s e l f r e a d i l y to making comparisons of conceptions of love and commitment across the life s p a n . It may be that the content of the prototypes does not change so much as what i s considered central and peripheral. Another area for future research concerns individual differences in conceptions of love and commitment. The purpose of the present research was to discover whether laypersons' conceptions of love and commitment were amenable to a prototype analysis. Given the exploratory nature of t h i s research, the examination of individual differences in these conceptions was not a primary goal. Thus, in the studies reported here, the samples used were not balanced for gender, nor were data c o l l e c t e d on other individual differences. However, a prototype analysis has the potential for uncovering the nature of individual differences in conceptions of love and commitment. Dion and Dion (1985) maintain that personality and gender are important in the study of love because they are associated with subjectively d i f f e r e n t experiences or phenomonologies of love. In a review of the l i t e r a t u r e on gender differences in love, Peplau (1983) concluded that men are more l i k e l y to endorse romantic b e l i e f s about love whereas women are more pragmatic. However, women are more l i k e l y to report emotional 152 symptoms of love such as f e e l i n g euphoric, having trouble concentrating, or f e e l i n g as though f l o a t i n g on a cloud ((e.g., Dion & Dion, 1975; Hendrick, Hendrick, Foote, & Slapion-Foote, 1984). Some authors have found that men f a l l in love more quickly (e.g., Kanin, Davidson, & Scheck, 1970), but that gender differences disappear as the couple becomes more committed (Rubin, Peplau & H i l l , 1981). F i n a l l y , there i s considerable evidence that women love t h e i r partners more companionately than they are loved in return (see H a t f i e l d & Traupmann, 1981). None of these studies, however, have d i r e c t l y examined men and women's prototypes of love. In Study Two, women and men's c e n t r a l i t y ratings for love were highly correlated, suggesting that women and men share si m i l a r conceptiona of love. This shared conception may r e f l e c t c u l t u r a l influences common to both females and males. It may be the case that while men and women do not d i f f e r in t h e i r general concept of love, differences may emerge when considering s p e c i f i c types of love (e.g., romantic love). V i r t u a l l y no research has been done on gender differences in commitment. Beach and Broderick (1983) reported that among couples seeking marital therapy, the wives' l e v e l of commitment accounted for a s i g n i f i c a n t amount of the variance i n marital s a t i s f a c t i o n before therapy, and in gains i n marital a a t i a f a c t i o n r e s u l t i n g from therapy. The r e s u l t s f o r husbands were largely nonsignificant. However, t h i s finding may speak to the fa c t that t h e i r one-item measure of commmitment was inadequate, rather than to the notion that men are impervious to 153 the l e v e l of commitment in th e i r personal relationships. In Study Two, males and females' c e n t r a l i t y ratings f o r commitment were highly correlated. Again, i t may be possible that men and women share the same general prototype of commitment, but that differences may be evident depending on the type of commitment studied. Clearly, an investigation of t h i a area i a long overdue. Other individual differencea in the experience of love have been explored by Dion and Dion. These include variables l i k e : locus of control (Dion & Dion, 1973), and various dimensions of s e l f concept l i k e self-esteem, defensiveness, and s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n (Dion & Dion, 1975). Whether or not people who are d i f f e r e n t personality types also conceptualize love and commitment d i f f e r e n t l y remains an int r i g u i n g question f o r future investigation. CONCLUSION There has been a s h i f t in psychology toward a greater concern with cognitive procesaea. One conaequence of t h i a emphaaia on cognition haa been the le g i t i m i z i n g of the atudy of the thought proceaaes of the layperson. I n i t i a l l y , these studies were directed at the everyday view of everyday concepta l i k e f r u i t , vehicle, furniture, and b i r d . The purpoae of the reaearch reported here waa to diacover how people atructure knowledge about concepta that have considerable si g n i f i c a n c e in t h e i r l i v e s - - t h e concepta of love and commitment. It waa found that even though people are unable to produce d e f i n i t i o n a of love and 154 commitment, t h e i r cognitive representation of these concepts i s r i c h and complex. Consistent with what one would expect from a prototype perspective, some features of love and commitment were considered more central than others, and t h i a prototype structure was shown to af f e c t variables l i k e frequency of free l i s t i n g , memory, and natural language use. Moreover, the prototype structure of love and commitment had consequences for how the everyday person assesses whether a relationship i s moving toward, or away from, greater love or commitment. The studies conducted here, in concert, were able to shed l i g h t on another important issue, namely, how are the concepts of love and commitment related? It was found that the data across s i x studies were most consistent with Kelley's description of love and commitment aa largely overlapping, yet p a r t i a l l y independent, concepts. The need for a descriptive analysis of close relationships i s well-documented by Kelley et a l . <1S83>. The prototype approach was successful in obtaining r i c h d e scriptive data on the everyday view of love and commitment. However, rather than simply providing a l i s t of features of these concepts, these studies demonstrated the structure of these featurea, and how th i a structure a f f e c t s the way these concepts are thought about, remembered, used i n language, and in assessing the dynamics of interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Studies Five and Six represented a s i g n i f i c a n t next step--both in terms of extending the implications of the prototype approach, and in terms of advancing our knowledge of the dynamics of interpersonal 155 relationships. In conclusion, t h e o r i s t s who write about love and commitment face a dilemma. As s c i e n t i s t s , they have sought precisely defined descriptive and explanatory concepta, and d e f i n i t e , clear-cut answers to t h e i r questions. At the same time, they have attempted to be, or t h e i r c r i t i c s have demanded they be, true to our everyday concepta of love and commitment. Paychologiata need not be bound by the f o l k concepts of love and commitment, but may a l t e r or abandon them to create a set of technical concepts more useful for s c i e n t i f i c purposes. Perhaps, new c l a s s i c a l l y defined concepts can be formulated. Perhaps the fuzzineaa of everyday concepts can be eliminated by well-placed, arbitrary boundaries. The prototype analysis of the concepts of love and commitment as presented here i s a descriptive, not a pr e s c r i p t i v e , analysis. What can be said i s that the success of working within Rosch's framework contrasts with the f r u s t r a t i o n expressed by writers who have attempted to define these concepts from a c l a s a i c a l perspective of c r i t e r i a l features, and that t h i s prototype analysis has aerved to reveal propertiea of love and commitment previoualy overlooked. 156 References Baum, M. (1972). Love, marriage and -the d i v i s i o n of labor. In H. P. Dre i t z e l (Ed.), Family, marriage, and the struggle of the sexes (pp. 83-106). New York: Macmillan. Beach, S. R. H. & Broderick, J. E. (1983). Commitment: A variable i n women's response to marital therapy. American Journal of Family Therapy. 11(4). 16-24. Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of committment. American Journal of Sociology. 66. 32-40. Becker, H. S. (1964). Personal change i n adult l i f e . Sociometry. 27, 40-53. Bourne, L. E. J r . , Dominowaki, R. L., & Loftus, E. F. (1979). Cognitive processes. Englewood C l i f f s , NJ: Prentice-Hall. Berscheid, E. & F e i , J. (1977). Romantic love and sexual jealousy. In G. Clanton & L. G. Smith (Eds.), Jealousy (pp.101-109). Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. H. (1978). Interpersonal a t t r a c t i o n (2nd Ed.). Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. Bransford, J. D. & Franka, J . J. (1971). The abstraction of l i n -g u i s t i c ideas. Cognitive Psychology. 2, 331-350. Brehm, J. W. & Cohen, A. R. (1962). Explorations in cognitive  dissonance. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Brehm, S. S. (1985). Intimate r e l a t i o n s h i p s . New York: Random House. Broughton, R. (1984). A prototype strategy f o r construction of personality scales. Journal of Personality and Social  Psychology. 47. 1334-1346. 157 Calfee, R. C. (1975). Human experimental psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Cantor, N. & Mischel, W. (1977). T r a i t s as prototypes: Ef f e c t s on recognition memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 35, 38-48. Cantor, N. & Mischel, W. (1979a). Prototypes i n person perception. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 12, 3-52. Cantor, N. & Mischel, W. (1979b). P r o t o t y p i c a l i t y and personality: E f f e c t s on free r e c a l l and personality impressions. Journal of Research in Personality. 13. 187-205. Cantor, N., Mischel, W. & Schwartz, J. C. (1982). A prototype analysis of psychological s i t u a t i o n s . Cognitive Psychology. 14, 45-77. Cantor, N., Smith, E. E., French, R. 0., & Mezzich, J. (1980). Psychiatric diagnosis as prototype categorization. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 89. 181-193. Centers, R. (1975). Sexual att r a c t i o n and love. S p r i n g f i e l d , 111.: Charles C. Thomas. Cimbalo, R. S., Fali n g , V., & Monsaw, P. (1976). The course of love: A cross-sectional design. Pvschological Reports. 38, 1292-1294 Cunningham, J. D. & A n t i l l , J. K. (1981). Love in developing romantic r e l a t i o n s h i p s . In S. Duck & R. Gilmour (Eds.), Personal r e l a t i o n s h i p s . 2: Developing personal rel a t i o n s h i p s (pp. 27-51). London: Academic Press. 158 Dahlgren, K. (1985). The cognitive structure of s o c i a l categories. Cognitive Science. 9, 379-398. Davis, K. & Todd, M. J . (1985). Assessing friendship: Prototypes, paradigm cases and re l a t i o n s h i p description. In S. Duck & D. Perlman (Eds.), Understanding personal  rel a t i o n s h i p s : An i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y approach (pp. 17-38). London: Sage. Dean, D. G., & Spanier, G. B. (1974). Comraittment--an overlooked variable i n marital adjustment? Sociological Focus. 7, 113-118. Dion, K. K. & Dion, K. L. (1975). Self-esteem and romantic love. Journal of Personality. 43. 39-57. Dion, K. K. & Dion, K. L. (1985). Personality, gender, and the phenomonology of romantic love. In P. R. Shaver (Ed.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 6, pp.209-239). Beverly i l l s , CA: Sage. Dion, K. L. & Dion, K. K. (1973). Correlates of romantic love. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 41, 51-56. Dion, K. L. & Dion, K. K. (1976). Love, l i k i n g , and t r u s t in heterosexual r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Personality and Social Psychology B u l l e t i n . 2, 187-190. Duck, S. (1982). A topography of re l a t i o n s h i p disengagement and d i s s o l u t i o n . In S. Duck (Ed.), Personal relationships.4: Dissolving personal rel a t i o n s h i p s (pp.1-30). London: Academic Press. Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed). New York: W. W. Norton. 159 Fehr, B. (1982). Prototype categorization of emotion. Unpublished master's the s i s . University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver. Fehr, B. & Russell, J. A. (1984). Concept of emotion viewed from a prototype perspective. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 113. 464-486. Fehr, B., Russell, J. A., & Ward, L. M. (1982). P r o t o t y p i c a l i t y of emotions: A reaction time atudy. B u l l e t i n of the Paychonomic Society. 20. 253-254. F i l s i n g e r , E. E. (1983). Love, l i k i n g , and individual marital adjustment: A p i l o t study of relationship changes within one year. International Journal of Sociology of the Family. 13., 145-157. Fiore, A. & Swensen, C. H. (1977). Analysis of love re l a t i o n s h i p s in functional and dysfunctional marriages. Psychological Reports. 40, 707-714. Forgas, J. P., & Dobosz, B. (1980). Dimensions of romantic involvement: Towards a taxonomy of heterosexual r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Social Psychology Quarterly. 43. 290-300. Franks, J . J . , & Bransford, J. D. (1971). Abstraction of vis u a l patterns. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 90, 65-74. Freud, S. (1922/1951). Group psychology and the analysis of the  ego ( J . Strachey, Ed. and Trans.). New York: Liveright. Fromm, E. H. (1956). The art of loving. New York: Harper & Row. Hampton, J. A. & Gardiner, M. M. (1983). Measures of internal category structure: A c o r r e l a t i o n a l analysis of normative data. B r i t i s h Journal of Psychology. 74, 491-516. 160 Hat f i e l d , E., & Walater, G. W. (1978). A new look at love. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. Ha t f i e l d , E. & Sprecher, 5. (1985). Measuring passionate love. Unpublished manuscript. University of Hawaii, Manoa. Heider, E. R. (1971). "Focal" color areas and the development of color names. Developmental Psychology, 4, 447-455. Heider, E. R. (1972). Universals in color naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 93. 10-20. Hendrick, C , Hendrick, S., Foote, F. H., 8. Slapion-Foote, M. J. (1984). Do men and women love d i f f e r e n t l y ? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 1_, 177-195. Hinde, R. A. (1979). Towards understanding re l a t i o n s h i p s . London: Academic Press. Hinde, R. A. (1981). The bases of a science of interpersonal rela t i o n s h i p s . In S. Duck & R. Gilmour (Eds.), Personal relationships. 1: Studying personal relationships (pp.1-22). London: Academic Press. Holliday, S. G. (1983). Psychological analysis of the concept of wisdom. Unpublished di s s e r t a t i o n , University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver. Horowitz, L. M., de S. French, R., & Anderson, C. A. (1982). The prototype of a lonely person. In L. A. Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory. research. and therapy (pp.183-205). New York: John Wiley & Sons. James, W. (1929). The v a r i e t i e s of r e l i g i o u s experience. New York: Longmans, Green & Co. 161 Johnson, M. P. (1973). Commitment: A conceptual structure and empirical a p p l i c a t i o n . Sociological Quarterly. 14., 395-406. Johnson, M. P. (1982). Social and cognitive features of the diss o l u t i o n of commitment to rel a t i o n s h i p s . In S. Duck (Ed.), Personal relationships 4: Dissolving personal  relationships (pp.51-73). London: Academic Press. Kanin, E. J., Davidson, K. R., & Scheck, S. R. (1970). A research note on male-female d i f f e r e n t i a l s in the experience of heterosexual love. Journal of Sex Research. 6, 64-72. Kelley, H. H. (1979). Personal relationships: Their structure  and processes. H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Erlbaum. Kelley, H. H. (1983). Love and commitment. In H. H. Kelley, E. Berscheid, A. Christensen, J. H. Harvey, T. L. Huston, G. Levinger, E. McClintock, L. A. Peplau, & D. R. Peterson (Eds.), Close relationships (pp.265-314). New York: W.H. Freeman and Company. Kelley, H. H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J. H., Huston, T. L., Levinger, G., McClintock, E, Peplau, L. A., & Peterson, D. R. (1983). Analyzing close r e l a t i o n s h i p s . In H. H. Kelley, E. Berscheid, A. Christensen, J. H. Harvey, T. L. Huston, G. Levinger, E. McClintock, L. A. Peplau, & D. R. Peterson (Eds.), Close relationships (pp.20-67). New York: W.H. Freeman and Company. Kie s l e r , C. A. (1971). The psychology of commitment. New York: Academic Press. Knox, D. H-, J r . (1970). Conceptions of love at three developmental l e v e l s . Family Coordinator. 19. 151-157. 162 Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedgea: A atudy In meaning c r i t e r i a and the lo g i c of fuzzy concepta. Journal of Philoaophical Logic. 2, 458-508. Laaswell, T. E. & Lasawell, M. E. (1976). I love you but I'm not in love with you. Journal of Marriage and Family Counseling, 2, 211-224. Lasswell, M., & Lobsenz, N. M. (1980). Styles of loving. New York: Doubleday & Co. Lee, J. A. (1977). A typology of s t y l e s of loving. Personality and Social Psychology B u l l e t i n . 3, 173-182. Leik, R. K. & Leik, S. A. (1977). Transition to interpersonal committment. In R. Hamblin & J . H. Kunkel(Eds). Behavioral Theory in Sociology(pp.299-322). New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books. Levinger, G. (1980). Toward the analyaia of close r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 16. 510-544. Lund, M. (1985). The development of investment and commitment scales for predicting continuity of personal r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Journal of Social and Personal Relationahipa. 2, 3-23. Malt, B. C. & Smith, E. E. (1982). The role of f a m i l i a r i t y in determining t y p i c a l i t y . Memory and Cognition. 10. 69-75. Mervia, C. B., C a t l i n , J., & Roach, E. (1975). Development of the atructure of color categoriea. Developmental Psychology. 11, 54-60. Mervia, C. B., & Roach, E. (1981). Categorization of natural objects. Annual Review of Psychology. 32., 89-115. Money, J. (1980). Love and love sickness. Baltimore: Johns 163 Hopkins University Press. Munro, B. & Adams, G. R. (1978). Love American s t y l e : A test of rol e structure theory on changes in attitudes toward love. Human Relations. 31. 215-228. Neisser, U. (1979). The concept of i n t e l l i g e n c e . Intelligence, 3, 217-227. Nisbett, R. E. & Wilson, T. D. (1977). T e l l i n g more than one can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review. 84. 231-259. Peplau, L. A. (1983). Roles and gender. In H. H. Kelley, E. Berscheid, A. Christensen, J. H. Harvey, T. L. Huston, G. Levinger, E. McClintock, L. A. Peplau, fi. D. R. Peterson (Eds.), Close relationships (pp.220-264). New York: W.H. Freeman and Company. Peplau, L. A., Cochran, S., Rook, K., & Padesky, C. (1978). Loving women: Attachment and autonomy in lesbian relationships. Journal of Social Iaaues. 34. 7-27. Perlman, D. & Fehr, B. (in press). The development of intimate rela t i o n s h i p s . In D. Perlman & S. Duck (Eds.), Intimate relationships: Development. dymanica. and deterioration (pp.13-42). Beverly H i l l s , CA: Sage. Posner, M. I., Goldsmith, R., & Welton, K. E., J r . (1967). Perceived distance and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of dis t o r t e d patterna. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 73. 28-38. Posner, M. I. & Keele, S. (1968). On the genesis of abstract ideas. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 77. 353-363. Reed, S. K. (1972). Pattern recognition and categorization. 164 Cognitive Psychology. 3, 382-407. Reedy, M. N., Birren, J. E., & Scheie, K. W. (1981). Age and sex differences i n s a t i s f y i n g love relationships across the adult l i f e span. Human Development. 24. 52-66. Rosch, E. H. (1973). On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. In T.E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp.111-144). New York: Academic Press. Rosch, E. (1974). L i n g u i s t i c r e l a t i v i t y . In A. S i l v e r s t e i n (Ed.), Human communication: Theoretical explorations (pp.95-121). H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum Press. Rosch, E. (1975a). Cognitive reference points. Cognitive Psychology. 7, 532-547. Rosch, E. (1975b). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 1Q4. 192-233. Rosch, E. (1978a). Human categorization. In N. Warren (Ed.), Studies i n cross-cultural psychology (Vol.1, pp.1-49). London: Academic Press. Rosch, E. (1978b). Pr i n c i p l e s of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp.27-48). H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Rosch, E. (1981, May). Prototype c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and l o g i c a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n : The two systems. Paper preaented at a meeting of the Jean Piaget Society, Philadelphia. Roach, E. & Mervia, C. B. (1976). Family reaemblancea in the internal atructure of categoriea. Cognitive Paychology. 7_, 165 573-605. Roach, E., Mervia, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. <1976a). Basic obiects in natural  categories. Working Paper #40. Language Behavior Research Laboratory, University of C a l i f o r n i a , Berkeley. Rosch, E., Me r v i s , C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976b). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology. 8, 382-439. Rosch, E., Simpson, C , S. M i l l e r , R. S. (1976). Structural bases of t y p i c a l i t y e f f e c t s . Journal of Experimental Psychology:  Human Perception and Performance. 2, 491-502. Rosenberg, S. & Jones, R. (1972). A method for investigating and representing a person's i m p l i c i t theory of personality: Theodore Dreiser's view of people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 22, 372-386. Rosenberg, S. & Sedlak, A. (1972). Structural representationa of perceived personality t r a i t r e l a t i o n s h i p s . In A. K. Romney, R. N. Shepard, & S. Nerlove (Eds.), Multidimensional  s c a l i n g : Theory and application in the behavioral sciences (Vol.2, pp. 133-162). New York: Seminar Press. Rosenblatt, P. C. (1977). Needed research on commitment in marriage. In G. Levinger, & H. L. Raush (Eds.), Close  relationships (pp.73-86). Amherst: University of Mass. Press. Rubin, Z.(1970). Measurement of romantic love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 16, 265-273. Rubin, Z.(1973). Liking and loving. New York: Holt, Rinehart & 166 Winston. Rubin, 2., Peplau, L. A., & H i l l , C. T. (1981). Loving and leaving: Sex differences in romantic attachments. Sex Roles. 7, 821-835. Rusbult, C. E. (1980a). Commitment and s a t i s f a c t i o n i n romantic associations: A t e s t of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 16. 172-186. Rusbult, C. E. (1980b). S a t i s f a c t i o n and commitment in friendships. Representative Research in Social Psychology. 11. 96-105. Schwartz, G. & Merten, D. (1980). Love and commitment. Beverly H i l l s , CA: Sage. Schwartz, J . C. & Shaver, P. (1984, August). A prototype approach to emotion structure. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association Conference, Toronto, Canada. Skolnick, A. (1978). The intimate enviroment: Exploring marriage and the family (2nd Ed.). Boston, L i t t l e , Brown. Solomon, R. C. (1981). Love: Emotion, myth and metaphor. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Press/Doubleday. Steck, R., Levitan, D., McLane, 0., & Kelley, H. H. (1982). Care, need, and conceptions of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 43. 481-491. Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review. 93. 119-135. Sternberg, R. J . & Grajek, S. (1984). The nature of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 47, 312-329. 167 Swensen, C. H., J r . (1972). The behaviors of love. In A. Otto (Ed)., Love today (pp.86-101). New York: Association Press. Swensen, C. H. (1973). Sacle of feelings and behaviors of love. In J. E. Jones & J. W. P f e i f f e r (Eds.), The 1973 annual  handbook for group f a c i l i t a t o r s (pp. 71-72). La J o l l a , CA: University Associates Publishers. Swensen, C. H., Eskew, R. W., & Kohlhepp, K. A. (1981). Stage of family l i f e c y c l e , ego development, and the marriage re l a t i o n s h i p . Journal of Marriage and the Family. 43. 841-852. Thibaut, J . W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The s o c i a l psychology of  groups. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Traupmann, J . & H a t f i e l d , E. (1981). Love and i t s e f f e c t s on mental and physical health. In R. W. Fogel, E. Hatfi e l d , S. B. K e l s l e r , & E. Shanas (Eds.), Aging: S t a b i l i t y and change  in the family (pp. 253-274). New York: Academic Press. Triandis, H. C , K i l t y , K., Shanmugan, A. V., Tanaka, Y., & V a s s i l i o u , V. (1972). Cognitive structures and the analysis of values. In H. C. Triandis (Ed.), The analysis of  aubiectlve culture (pp.181-261). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Tversky, B., & Hemenway, K. (1983). Categories of enviromental scenes. Cognitive Psychology. 15, 121-149. Watson, J . B. (1924). Hereditary modes of response: Emotion. In Psychology from the standpoint of a behaviorist (2nd ed., pp.194-230). Philadelphia: Lippincott. Weeka, D. G., Michela, J. L., Peplau, L. A., & Bragg, M. E. 16S (1980). Relation between loneliness and depression: A st r u c t u r a l equation analysis. Journal of Personality and  Social Psychology, 39. 1238-1244. Wish, M., Deutsch, M., & Kaplan, S.J. (1976). Perceived dimensions of interpersonal relationships. Journal of  Personality and Social Psychology. 33. 409-420. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. New York: Macmillan. 169 T a b l e 1 F r e e L i s t i n g o f F e a t u r e s o f L o v e and Commitment LOVE COMMITMENT F e a t u r e * Ss F e a t u r e * : 5s • c a r i n g 43.75 p e r e e r v a n c e 34 .83 h a p p i n e s s 29.17 • r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 28 .09 want t o be w i t h o t h e r 26.13 l i v i n g up t o y o u r word 23 .60 f r i e n d s h i p 22.92 • d e v o t i o n 21 .35 f e e l f r e e t o t a l k a b o u t f a i t h f u l n e s s 19 .10 a n y t h i n g 19.79 o b i i g a t i o n 17 .98 warm f e e l i n g s 16.67 • s a c r i f i c e 15 .73 a c c e p t o t h e r t h e way a/he i s l 5 . 6 3 • h o n e s t y 14 .61 • t r u s t 14.58 l o v e 14 .61 commitment 13.54 • t r u s t 13 .48 • s h a r i n g 13.54 • h e l p i n g 12 .36 • t h i n k a b o u t t h e o t h e r a l l • l o y a l t y 12 .36 t h e t i m e 13 . 5 1 a p r o m i s e 12 .36 • s a c r i f i c e 13.54 " b e i n g t h e r e " f o r t h e o t h e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g 12.50 i n good and bad t i m e s 11 .24 • h o n e s t y 11.46 m u t u a l a g r e e m e n t 11 .24 • r e s p e c t 11.46 • c a r i n g 10 .11 • c o n t e n t m e n t 10.42 g i v e y o u r b e s t e f f o r t 10 .11 e u p h o r i a 10.42 • p u t o t h e r f i r s t 8 .99 • p u t o t h e r f i r s t 9.38 • r e s p e c t 8 .99 s e x u a l p a s s i o n 9.38 • a t t a c h m e n t 7 .87 • s u p p o r t i v e n e s s 9.38 a t t e n t i o n f o c u a a e d on o t h e r 6 .74 • a t t a c h m e n t 8.33 • c o n c e r n f o r t h e o t h e r ' s w e l l -c l o a e n e s a 8.33 b e i n g 6 .74 • c o n c e r n f o r t h e o t h e r ' s w e l l - • g i v i n g 6 .74 b e i n g 8.33 • i o n g l a a t i n g 6 .74 empathy 8.33 r e l i a b l e 6 .74 h e a r t r a t e i n c r e a s e s 8.33 • s h a r i n g 6 .74 • h e l p i n g 8.33 work t o w a r d common g o a l s 5 .62 f e e l good a b o u t s e l f 7.29 c o n s c i o u s d e c i s i o n 4 .49 f o r g i v e n e s s 7.29 f e e l t r a p p e d 4 .49 have a l o t i n common 7.29 g i v i n g and t a k i n g 4 .49 m i s s o t h e r when a p a r t 7.29 h a r d work 4 .49 f e e l r e l a x e d w i t h o t h e r 6.25 • s u p p o r t i v e n e s s 4 .49 • g i v i n g 6.25 w o r k i n g o u t p r o b l e m s 4 .49 • l i k i n g 6.25 a " h i g h p r i o r i t y 3 .37 • s e c u r i t y 6.25 • l i k i n g 3 .37 u n c o n d i t i o n a l 6.25 • s e c u r i t y 3 .37 i n t e r e s t i n t h e o t h e r 5.21 • t h i n k a b o u t o t h e r a l l t h e i n t i m a c y 5.21 t i m e 3 .37 l a u g h i n g 5.21 • a f f e c t i o n 2 .25 • l o y a l t y 5.21 • c o n t e n t m e n t 2 .25 • p h y s i c a l a t t r a c t i o n 5.21 m a t u r i t y 2 .25 u n c e r t a i n t y 5.21 • a f f e c t i o n 4.17 170 Table 1 (continued) Free Listing of Features of Love and Commitment LOVE Feature * Sa butterflies in stomach 4. 17 compassion 4. 17 dependency 4. 17 do things for other 4. 17 excitement 4. 17 kind 4. 17 other ia important 4. 17 positive outlook 4. 17 responaibi1ity 4. 17 see only other's good qualities 4. 17 touching 4. 17 devotion 3. 13 energy 3. 13 gazing at other 3. 13 mutual 3. 13 need each other 3. 13 openness 3. 13 patient 3. 13 protectiveness 3. 13 scary 3. 13 sexual appeal 3. 13 wonderful feelings 3. 13 admiration 2. 08 comfort 2. 08 want best for other 2. 08 longlasting 2. 08 Note: Percentages based on 96 protocols for love; 89 protocols for commitment. « indicates featurea ahared by love and commitment 171 T a b l e 2 C e n t r a l i t y R a t i n g s a s a F u n c t i o n o f Form o f Q u e s t i o n n a i r e CONCEPT FEATURE MEAN RATING Love L o v e Commitment Commitment mutual l o y a l t y h o n e s t y " b e i n g t h e r e " f o r o t h e r i n good and bad t i m e s 5.27<F5) 7.18(LS) 6. 6, 5. 6. 00<FL) 92CML) 8 9 ( F L ) 60(ML> 6.00<FL) 6.92(LL> 6.20(ML> 6.44CLL) 1.65» .45* .54« .17* » p >.10. N o t e : FS = F i r s t Item on S h o r t Form o f t h e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e LS = L a s t Item on S h o r t Form o f t h e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e FL = F i r s t Item on t h e Long Form o f t h e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ML = M i d d l e Item on t h e Long Form o f t h e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e LL = L a s t Item on t h e Long Form o f t h e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e 172 T a b l e 3 Mean C e n t r a l i t y R a t i n g s o f t h e F e a t u r e s o f Lov e and Commitment LOVE COMMITMENT F e a t u r e R a t i n g t r u s t 7.500 c a r i n g 7.284 h o n e a t y 7.176 f r i e n d s h i p 7.081 r e s p e c t 7.014 c o n c e r n f o r t h e o t h e r ' s w e l l -b e i n g 7.000 l o y a l t y 7.000 commitment 6.919 a c c e p t o t h e r t h e y way s/he i s 6.824 a u p p o r t i v e n e s s e 6.784 want t o be w i t h t h e o t h e r 6.784 i n t e r e s t i n t h e o t h e r 6.689 a f f e c t i o n 6.676 c l o s e n e s s 6.649 u n d e r s t a n d i n g 6.608 s h a r i n g 6.581 want b e s t f o r o t h e r 6.581 f o r g i v e n e s s 6.554 i n t i m a c y 6.527 o t h e r i s i m p o r t a n t 6.459 o p e n n e s s 6.392 f e e l r e l a x e d w i t h o t h e r 6.365 l i k i n g 6.338 c o m p a s s i o n 6.311 d e v o t i o n 6.284 g i v i n g 6.230 h a p p i n e s s 6.216 f e e l f r e e t o t a l k a b o u t any-t h i n g 6.189 do t h i n g a f o r t h e o t h e r 6.135 f e e l good a b o u t s e l f 6.068 r e s p o n a i b i l i t y 6.041 warm f e e l i n g s 6.041 p a t i e n c e 6.000 l o n g l a s t m g 6.000 n i s s o t h e r when a p a r t 5.986 c o m f o r t o t h e r 5.946 a t t a c h m e n t 5.892 s e x a p p e a l 5.865 t o u c h i n g 5.824 s e x u a l p a s s i o n 5.811 need e a c h o t h e r 5.797 m u t u a l 5.784 c o n t e n t a e n t 5.770 p u t o t h e r f i r s t 5.703 u n c o n d i t i o n a l 5.689 F e a t u r e R a t i n g l o y a l t y 6.724 r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 6.605 l i v i n g up t o y o u r word 6.566 f a i t h f u l n e s s 6.553 t r u s t 6.539 " b e i n g t h e r e " f o r t h e o t h e r i n good and bad t i m e s 6.526 d e v o t i o n 6.421 r e l i a b l e 6.342 g i v e b e s t e f f o r t 6.276 s u p p o r t i v e n e s s 6.263 p e r a e r v e r a n c e 6.118 c o n c e r n a b o u t t h e o t h e r ' s w e l l - b e i n g 6.066 h o n e s t y 6.053 l o v e 6.053 r e s p e c t 6.039 c a r i n g 6.013 a h i g h p r i o r i t y 5.908 g i v i n g 5.882 a p r o m i s e 5.776 o b l i g a t i o n 5.750 s a c r i f i c e 5.711 s h a r i n g 5.711 h a r d work 5.658 h e l p i n g 5.618 w o r k i n g o u t p r o b l e m s 5.618 c o n s c i o u s d e c i s i o n 5.408 a t t a c h m e n t 5.382 l i k i n g 5.382 g i v i n g and t a k i n g 5.355 m a t u r i t y 5.289 l o n g l a s t l n g 5.250 m u t u a l agreement 5.237 work t o w a r d common g o a l s 5.224 a f f e c t i o n 5.197 p u t o t h e r f i r s t 4.987 a t t e n t i o n f o c u s s e d on o t h e r 4.961 c o n t e n t m e n t 4.645 s e c u r i t y 4.S92 t h i n k about, o t h e r a l l t h e t i m e 3.829 f e e l t r a p p e d 2.487 173 T a b l e 3 ( c o n t i n u e d ) Mean C e n t r a l i t y R a t i n g s o f t h e F e a t u r e s o f Lov e and Commitment LOVE F e a t u r e R a t i n a w o n d e r f u l f e e l i n g s 5.622 p h y s i c a l a t t r a c t i o n 5.581 l a u g h i n g 5.473 s a c r i f i c e 5.432 h e l p i n g 5.419 empathy 5.351 a d m i r a t i o n 5.311 p o s i t i v e o u t l o o k 5.284 k i n d 5.135 p r o t e c t i v e n e s s 5.108 have a l o t i n common 5.108 e x c i t e m e n t 5.027 s e c u r i t y 4.986 t h i n k a b o u t t h e o t h e r a l l t h e t i m e 4.446 e n e r g y 4.284 h e a r t r a t e i n c r e a s e s 4.257 e u p h o r i a 4.122 g a z i n g a t t h e o t h e r 4.095 s e e o n l y t h e o t h e r ' s good q u a l i t i e s 3.446 b u t t e r f l i e s i n stomach 3.405 u n c e r t a i n t y 2.878 dependency 2.811 s c a r y 2.284 N o t e : R a t i n g s made on a s c a l e where 1 - e x t r e m e l y p o o r f e a t u r e o f l o v e [commitment) and 8 = e x t r e m e l y good f e a t u r e o f l o v e [commitment]. 174 T a b l e 4 Memory f o r C e n t r a l and P e r i p h e r a l F e a t u r e a LOVE ATTRIBUTES Group One A c q u i s t i o n I t e m s ; Group Two F a l s e R e c o g n i t i o n Items C e n t r a l P e r i p h e r a l c a r i n g i n t e r e s t i n t h e o t h e r a c c e p t t h e o t h e r t h e way s/he i s want t o be w i t h t h e o t h e r a f f e c t i o n d e v o t i o n g i v i n g do t h i n g s f o r o t h e r f e e l good a b o u t s e l f l o n g l a s t i n g t o u c h i n g need e a c h o t h e r u n c o n d i t i o n a l l a u g h i n g s a c r i f i c e e x c i t e m e n t k i n d n e s s u n c e r t a i n t y m i s s o t h e r when a p a r t c o n t e n t m e n t Group Two A c q u i s i t i o n I t e m s ; Group One F a l s e R e c o g n i t i o n Items C e n t r a l P e r i p h e r a l f r i e n d s h i p c o m p a s s i o n f o r g i v e n e s s c o n c e r n f o r e a c h o t h e r i n t i m a c y c l o s e n e s s p a t i e n c e h a p p i n e s s u n d e r s t a n d i n g h o n e s t y s e x u a l p a s s i o n e n e r g y p h y s i c a l a t t r a c t i o n a d m i r a t i o n p o s i t i v e o u t l o o k g a z i n g a t e a c h o t h e r m u tual have a l o t i n common t h i n k a b o u t t h e o t h e r c o m f o r t t h e o t h e r 175 Table 4 Ccontinued) COMMITMENT ATTRIBUTES Group One Acquistion Items; Group Two False Recognition Items Central Peripheral responsibility a promise supportiveness respect faithfulness perserverance live up to your word trust caring "being there" for the other affection maturity liking sharing contentment mutual agreement work toward common goal* sacrifice conscious decision put other f i r s t Group Two Acquisition Items; Group One False Recognition Items Central honesty perserverance concern for the other loyalty a high priority reliable giving obligation give best effort devotion Peripheral hard work think about the other security helping giving and taking feel trapped longlastlng attention focussed on the other working out problems attachment Note: There are only 20 central commitment items, and one of these items is "love", which was not an appropriate acquisition item. Thus one of Group One's acquistion items, "perserverance", was randomly selected for Group Two, to replace "love". 176 T a b l e 5 Mean P e c u l i a r i t y R a t i n g s o f th« LOVE F e a t u r e R a t i n g t r u s t 5.20 c a r i n g 5.45 h o n e s t y 5.60 f r i e n d s h i p 3.70 r e s p e c t 5.80 c o n c e r n f o r t h e o t h e r ' s w e l l -b e i n g 4.15 l o y a l t y 5.10 commitment 5.00 a c c e p t o t h e r t h e y way a/he i s 4.75 s u p p o r t i v e n e s s 5.30 want t o be w i t h t h e o t h e r 6.65 i n t e r e s t i n t h e o t h e r 5.95 a f f e c t i o n 3.15 c l o s e n e s s 5.15 u n d e r s t a n d i n g 4.15 s h a r i n g 5.10 wont b e s t f o r o t h e r 5.55 f o r g i v e n e s s 4.40 i n t i m a c y 5.20 o t h e r i s i m p o r t a n t 5.60 o p e n n e s s 4.70 f e e l r e l a x e d w i t h o t h e r 5.80 l i k i n g 6.10 c o m p a s s i o n 3.90 d e v o t i o n 4.65 g i v i n g 4.00 h a p p i n e s s 5.20 f e e l f r e e t o t a l k a b o u t any-t h i n g 4.50 do t h i n g s f o r t h e o t h e r 5.20 f e e l good a b o u t s e l f 4.10 r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 5.15 warm f e e l i n g s 5.15 p a t i e n c e 4.20 l o n g l a a t i n g 5.25 m a s o t h e r when a p a r t 3.85 c o m f o r t o t h e r 5.05 a t t a c h m e n t 5.75 s e x a p p e a l 3.00 t o u c h i n g 4.95 s e x u a l p a s s i o n 3.05 need e a c h o t h e r 3.70 m u t u a l 4.00 c o n t e n t m e n t 5.25 p u t o t h e r f i r s t 5.00 u n c o n d i t i o n a l 3.80 F e a t u r e s o f L o v e and Commitment COMMITMENT F e a t u r e R a t i n g l o y a l t y 5.55 r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 5.50 l i v i n g up t o y o u r word 4.50 f a i t h f u l n e s s 5.50 t r u s t 6.00 " b e i n g t h e r e " f o r t h e o t h e r i n good and bad t i m e s 5.10 d e v o t i o n 6.20 r e l i a b l e 4.25 g i v e b e s t e f f o r t 4.60 s u p p o r t i v e n e s s 4.85 p e r s e r v e r a n c e 4.70 c o n c e r n a b o u t t h e o t h e r ' s w e l l - b e i n g 5.25 h o n e s t y 5.30 l o v e 6.30 r e s p e c t 4.90 c a r i n g 6.30 a h i g h p r i o r i t y 4.95 g i v i n g 4.40 a p r o m i s e 4.20 o b l i g a t i o n 3.45 s a c r i f i c e 4.00 s h a r i n g 5.10 h a r d work 4.40 h e l p i n g 4.05 w o r k i n g o u t p r o b l e m s 4.25 c o n s c i o u s d e c i s i o n 4.30 a t t a c h m e n t 4.35 l i k i n g 6.10 g i v i n g and t a k i n g 4.70 m a t u r i t y 4.45 l o n g l a a t i n g 5.55 m u t u a l a g r e e m e n t 4.10 work t o w a r d common g o a l s 4.05 a f f e c t i o n 5.55 p u t o t h e r f i r s t 4.55 a t t e n t i o n f o c u s s e d on o t h e r 4.55 c o n t e n t m e n t 4.85 s e c u r i t y 4.20 t h i n k a b o u t o t h e r a l l t h e t i m e 5.15 f e e l t r a p p e d 2.35 177 T a b l e 5 ( c o n t i n u e d ) Mean P e c u l i a r i t y R a t i n g s o f t h e F e a t u r e s o f Lov e and Commitment LOVE F e a t u r e R a t i n q w o n d e r f u l f e e l i n g s 4.55 p h y s i c a l a t t r a c t i o n 3.90 l a u g h i n g 3.85 s a c r i f i c e 6.15 h e l p i n g 4.35 empathy 4.80 a d m i r a t i o n 4.05 p o s i t i v e o u t l o o k 5.10 k i n d 4.70 p r o t e c t i v e n e a s 3.00 have a l o t i n common 5.50 e x c i t e m e n t 3.15 s e c u r i t y 3.85 t h i n k a b o u t t h e o t h e r a l l t h e t i m e 4.95 e n e r g y 2.85 h e a r t r a t e i n c r e a s e s 3.70 e u p h o r i a 3.30 g a z i n g a t t h e o t h e r 3.55 aee o n l y t h e o t h e r ' s good q u a l i t i e s 5.60 b u t t e r f l i e s i n stomach 3.30 u n c e r t a i n t y 3.35 d e p endency 2.45 s c a r y 2.90 N o t e : R a t i n g s made on a s c a l e where l = e x t r e m e l y n a t u r a l s o u n d i n g and 7 = e x t r e m e l y p e c u l i a r s o u n d i n g . 178 T a b l e 6 T y p e a o f R e l a t i o n s h i p s LOVE RELATIONSHIPS H i g h -husband and w i f e -an engaged c o u p l e - m a r r i a g e a f t e r a l o n g c o u r t s h i p -a m i d d l e - a g e d c h i l d c a r i n g f o r h i s / h e r e l d e r l y p a r e n t b e c a u s e s/he want t o Medium H i g h - c l o s e f r i e n d s - s h o r t , m u tual f i r s t l o v e -a l o n g , i n v o l v e d " g o i n g s t e a d y " r e l a t i o n s h i p a t s c h o o l - t h e c o n t i n u a t i o n o f a o n c e p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p by l e t t e r s and phone c a l l f rom o v e r s e a s Medium Low -a h i g h s c h o o l d o t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t b r e a k s up o n c e t h e c o u p l e has gone away t o c o l l e g e -an i r r e g u l a r , o c c a s i o n a l d a t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p f o r mutual e n t e r t a i n m e n t between two young p e o p l e -a s h o r t , e m o t i o n a l h o l i d a y a f f a i r -a s c h o o l a f f a i r between t e a c h e r and p u p i l Low - s a l e s p e r s o n and r e g u l a r c u s t o m e r -a o n e - n i g h t s e x u a l e n c o u n t e r - i n t e r v i e w e r and 3 0 b a p p l i c a n t - p o l i t i c a l o p p o n e n t s 179 Table 6 (continued) COMMITMENT RELATIONSHIPS High - p a r e n t and young c h i l d -husband and w i f e -an engaged c o u p l e -a m a r r i a g e o f 25 y e a r s Medium H i g h -a permanent b u t n o n s e x u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between two young r e l i g i o u s p e o p l e - p s y c h o t h e r a p i s t and p a t i e n t -a l o n g , i n v o l v e d " g o i n g s t e a d y " r e l a t i o n s h i p a t s c h o o l -a b o y / g i r l f r i e n d l i v i n g t o g e t h e r a f t e r s e v e r a l months o f d a t i n g Medium Low -a s t e a d y r e l a t i o n s h i p where ea c h g o e s o u t w i t h members o f t h e o p p o s i t e sex -a m a i n l y s e x u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h an o l d e r and more e x p e r i e n c e d p e r s o n -a s a l e s p e r s o n and r e g u l a r c u s t o m e r -a " g o i n g s t e a d y " r e l a t i o n s h i p m a i n t a i n e d m a i n l y t o i m p r e s s p e e r s Low - i n t e r v i e w e r and 3 0 b a p p l i c a n t - v e r b a l and p h y s i c a l f l i r t i n g a t a p a r t y , w i t h o u t f o l i o w - u p -a o n e - n i g h t s e x u a l e n c o u n t e r - p e r s o n a l e n e m i e s 180 T a b l e 7 Mean Impact R a t i n g s o f V i o l a t i o n s o f t h e F e a t u r e s o f Love and Commitment LOVE COMMITMENT F e a t u r e R a t i n g F e a t u r e R a t i n g t r u s t c a r i n g h o n e s t y f r i e n d s h i p r e s p e c t 7. 7. 7. 7. 7. c o n c e r n f o r t h e o t h e r ' s w e l l -b e i n g 7. l o y a l t y 6, commitment a c c e p t o t h e r t h e y way s/he i s 7. s u p p o r t i v e n e a s 6. want t o be w i t h t h e o t h e r 8. i n t e r e s t i n t h e o t h e r 6. a f f e c t i o n 7. c l o s e n e s s 7, u n d e r s t a n d i n g 7. s h a r i n g 6, want b e s t f o r o t h e r 7. f o r g i v e n e s s 6, i n t i m a c y 7. o t h e r i s i m p o r t a n t 7. o p e n n e s s 7. f e e l r e l a x e d w i t h o t h e r 7, l i k i n g 7. c o m p a s s i o n 5. d e v o t i o n 6. g i v i n g 6. h a p p i n e s s 7, f e e l f r e e t o t a l k a b o u t any-t h i n g ' 6. do t h i n g s f o r t h e o t h e r 6. f e e l good a b o u t s e l f 6. r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 4. warm f e e l i n g s 7, p a t i e n c e 6. l o n g l a a t i n g 6. m i s s o t h e r when a p a r t 6. c o m f o r t o t h e r 6. a t t a c h m e n t 6. sex a p p e a l 8, t o u c h i n g 7, s e x u a l p a s s i o n 5. need e a c h o t h e r 6. mutual 7. c o n t e n t m e n t 6, p u t o t h e r f i r s t 6. u n c o n d i t i o n a l 5, 519 630 185 133 148 741 714 933 481 767 967 222 133 633 111 433 600 100 967 833 567 593 667 741 074 633 633 933 500 852 367 00O 481 000 867 185 933 200 967 833 200 444 259 867 l o y a l t y 7.333 r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 5.S19 l i v i n g up t o y o u r word 7.189 f a i t h f u l n e s s 7.944 t r u s t 8.037 " b e i n g t h e r e " f o r t h e o t h e r i n good and bad t i m e s 7.367 d e v o t i o n 6.407 r e l i a b l e 6.822 g i v e b e s t e f f o r t 6.800 s u p p o r t i v e n e s s 6.444 p e r s e r v e r a n c e 5.667 c o n c e r n a b o u t t h e o t h e r ' s w e l l - b e i n g 7.778 h o n e s t y 8.037 l o v e r e s p e c t 7.519 c a r i n g 7.704 a h i g h p r i o r i t y 7.300 g i v i n g 5.926 a p r o m i s e 6.044 o b l i g a t i o n 5.011 s a c r i f i c e 5.074 s h a r i n g 6.148 h a r d work 3.033 h e l p i n g 5.296 w o r k i n g o u t p r o b l e m s 7.078 c o n s c i o u s d e c i s i o n 4.989 a t t a c h m e n t 5.444 l i k i n g 7.593 g i v i n g and t a k i n g 7.056 m a t u r i t y 5.911 l o n g l a a t i n g 7.370 mutual agreement 7.089 work t o w a r d common g o a l s 5.922 a f f e c t i o n 6.481 put o t h e r f i r s t 6.519 a t t e n t i o n f o c u s s e d on o t h e r 6.711 c o n t e n t m e n t 6.630 s e c u r i t y 5.444 t h i n k a b o u t o t h e r a l l t h e t i m e 3.667 f e e l t r a p p e d 2.811 181 T a b l e 7 ( c o n t i n u e d ) Mean Impact R a t i n g s o f V i o l a t i o n s o f t h e F e a t u r e s o f Love and Commitment LOVE F e a t u r e R a t i n g w o n d e r f u l f e e l i n g s 6.667 p h y s i c a l a t t r a c t i o n 6.500 l a u g h i n g 6.167 s a c r i f i c e 4.593 h e l p i n g 5.185 empathy 5.567 a d m i r a t i o n 5.300 p o s i t i v e o u t l o o k 7.200 k i n d 7.200 p r o t e c t i v e n e s s 4.267 have a l o t i n common 6.667 e x c i t e m e n t 6.167 s e c u r i t y 5.556 t h i n k a b o u t t h e o t h e r a l l t h e t i m e 4.630 e n e r g y 5.067 h e a r t r a t e i n c r e a s e s 4.100 e u p h o r i a 4.500 g a z i n g a t t h e o t h e r 4.633 s e e o n l y t h e o t h e r ' s good q u a l i t i e s 3.533 b u t t e r f l i e s i n s t o m a c h 3.867 u n c e r t a i n t y 3.367 dependency 3.433 s c a r y 2.800 N o t e : R a t i n g s were made on t h i s e v e n t w i l l d e c r e a s e l o v e t h i s e v e n t w i l l d e c r e a s e l o v e a s c a l e where l = n o t a t a l l [commitment] t o 9 = e x t r e m e i y [commitment]. l i k e l y l i k e l y t h a t t h a t 182 T a b l e 8 C o r r e l a t i o n s Among M e a s u r e s o f t h e P r o t o t y p e S t r u c t u r e o f t h e C o n c e p t s o f Lov e and Commitment LOVE 1. C e n t r a l i t y R a t i n g s 2. F r e q u e n c y o f F r e e L i s t i n g 3. P e c u l i a r i t y R a t i n g s 4. Impact o f V i o l a t i o n s .38»«« .49»«« .74«»« 2 . 35«« . 32»« .20* ,52»»« .31«« .48»»» ,85»»* ,31»» ,51«»» COMMITMENT 1. C e n t r a l i t y R a t i n g s 2. F r e q u e n c y o f F r e e L i s t i n g 3. P e c u l i a r i t y R a t i n g s 4. Impact o f V i o l a t i o n s ,67«»« .44«« .42«« 2 •52««« . 14 . 17 ,55»»« . 18 .59« »« .58««» .09 .58 » » » » p<.05 *» p<.005 p<.001 No t e : C o r r e l a t i o n s a bove t h e d i a g o n a l b a s e d c o r r e l a t i o n s below t h e d i a g o n a l b a s e d on r a n k s . on raw s c r o r e s : 183 F i g u r e 1. R e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e c o n c e p t a o f l o v e a n d c o m m i t m e n t . MONEY(1981) SOLOMON(1981) KELLEY(1983) STERNBERG(1986) 1 8 5 F i g u r e 2. Number o f f e a t u r e a g e n e r a t e d f o r l o v e a n d f o r c o m m i t -m e n t . 186 187 F i g u r e 3. A p p l i c a b i l i t y o f c e n t r a l a n d p e r i p h e r a l f e a t u r e s t o t y p e a o f l o v i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s . 188 LOVE 9-i 8H < 2-1-O-l • — r 1 1 1 — Low Medium-Low Medium-High High 189 F i g u r e 4. A p p l i c a b i l i t y o f c e n t r a l a n d p e r i p h e r a l f e a t u r e s t o t y p e s o f c o m m i t t e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s . 190 191 Appendix A The questionnaires used in Study One varied i n terms of the type of example given (extraversion/terror) and whether subjects were asked to l i s t featurea f o r love and commitment, or f o r only one of these concepts. The sample questionnaires included here i l l u s t r a t e each example used. The f i r s t questionnaire contains the love and commitment in s t r u c t i o n s ; the second questionnaire contains the i n s t r u c t i o n s used to e l i c i t only the features of one concept ( i n t h i s case, commitment). 192 Love and commitment a r e u s i b e r s o f a l a r g e c l a s s o f g l o b a l c o n c e p t s t h a t r e s e a r c h e r s have found u s e f u l i n c h a r a c t e r i z i n g I n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . T h i s l a a simple study t o f i n d out the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and a t t r i b u t e s of these two concepts. For example, i f you were aaked t o l i s t the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the concept. e x t r a v e r s i o n . you might w r i t e : — l i v e l i n e s s - - s o c i a b i l i t y - - l o t a o f energy - - i m p u l s i v i t y — f r i e n d l i n e s s --outgoingneaa --boldness - - e n t h u s i a a i — s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e --v i vac iousneas --high a c t i v i t y l e v e l --eagerness --not a f r a i d t o take a dare --can be domineering --exuberance - - t a l k a t i v e n e s s - - j o k i n g around When t h i n k i n g about l o v e or commitment, you might ask y o u r s e l f : 193 what, a a m f a s t a t i o n s a r e t h e r e o f i t ? what thoughts do you have about i t ? how do you show i t ? i n what c i r c u m s t a n c e s are you apt t o be aware o f i t ? I t n i g h t h e l p t o imagine you're e x p l a i n i n g the meaning of the word l o v e or commitment t o a f o r e i g n e r o r t o aomeone who has never e x p e r i e n c e d i t . So i n c l u d e the o b v i o u s . T e l l how i t comes about and what happens a f t e r . But, emphasize a d e s c r i p t i o n of how one f e e l s and a c t s . Try not j u s t t o f r e e a s s o c i a t e . I f " l o v e " makes you t h i n k o f your granny Smith, don't w r i t e "Granny Smith". We're i n t e r e s t e d i n what i s common t o i n s t a n c e s o f l o v e and commitment. P l e a s e remember t h a t p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s study i s v o l u n t a r y , and t h a t you a r e f r e e t o withdraw a t any time without f e a r of p r e j u d i c i a l a c t i o n s o r r e p e r c u s s i o n s . I f you complete t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e , I w i l l assume t h a t you have g i v e n your consent t o p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h i s study. Thank you f o r your p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Your response i s h e l p f u l and w i l l be u s e f u l i n g u i d i n g our r e s e a r c h . Age Female Hale 194 P l e a s e d e s c r i b e what LOVE i s . Try t o be as s p e c i f i c as you can. L i s t as many f e a t u r e a as you can t h i n k o f , but don't take more than about t h r e e minutes t o complete t h e taak. 195 P l e a s e d e s c r i b e what. COMMITMENT i s . Try t o be as s p e c i f i c as you can. L i s t as many f e a t u r e a as you can t h i n k o f , but don't take i o r a than about t h r e e minutes t o complete the taak. 196 F i n a l l y , t h i n k about what l o v e and commitment mean i n r e l a t i o n t o one another. In what ways a r e they s i m i l a r ? In what ways a r e they d i f f e r e n t ? Take a few minutes t o w r i t e down whatever thoughts come t o mind. Commitment i a a concept t h a t r e s e a r c h e r s have found u s e f u l i n c h a r a c t e r i z i n g i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . T h i s i s a simple study to f i n d out the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and a t t r i b u t e s of commitment. For example. i f you were asked t o l i s t the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the concept, t e r r o r . you might w r i t e : - - p o s s i b l e danger occurs--may be r e a l l i k e a bear; may be imaginary l i k e a ghost - - a t t e n t i o n i s f o c u s e d on the t h r e a t — h e a r t beats q u i c k l y --eyes open wider --eyebrows l i f t --palms and s o l e s sweat --thoughts r a c e through the person's mind --unpleasant s e n s a t i o n s a r e e x p e r i e n c e d --the person runs as f a s t aa they can --hands tremble - - r e l i e f i s e x p e r i e n c e d a f t e r a few minutes When t h i n k i n g about commitment, you might ask y o u r s e l f : what m a n i f e s t a t i o n s a r e t h e r e of i t ? what thoughts do you have about i t ? how do you show i t ? i n what c i r c u m s t a n c e s are you apt to be aware of i t ? I t might h e l p t o imagine you're e x p l a i n i n g the meaning of the word commitment t o a f o r e i g n e r or t o someone who has never e x p e r i e n c e d i t . So i n c l u d e the o b v i o u s . T e l l how i t comes about and what happens a f t e r . But, emphasize a d e s c r i p t i o n of how one f e e l s and a c t a . 198 Try not. j u s t t o f r a a a s s o c i a t e . I f "commitment" make* you t h i n k o f your p a r t n e r , don't w r i t e your p a r t n e r ' s naae. We're i n t e r e s t e d i n what i a common t o i n s t a n c e s of commitment. Pl e a s e remember t h a t p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s study i s v o l u n t a r y , and t h a t you a r e f r e e to withdraw a t any time without f e a r of p r e j u d i c i a l a c t i o n s o r r e p e r c u s s i o n s . I f you complete t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e , I w i l l assume t h a t you have g i v e n your consent t o p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h i s study. Thank you f o r your p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Your response i s h e l p f u l and w i l l be u s e f u l i n g u i d i n g our r e s e a r c h . Age Female Hale A p p e n d i x B Summary T a b l e o f t h e A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e o n J u d g e s ' R a t i n g s o f S c r i p t v s . A t t r i b u t e - L i s t R ATING BY CONCEPT EXAMPLE INSTRUCT SUM OF MEAN S I G N I F SOURCE OF V A R I A T I O N SQUARES DF SQUARE F OF F MAIN E F F E C T S 1 .538 3 0. .513 0. .272 0 . 8 4 5 CONCEPT 0 .037 1 0. 0 3 7 0. 0 2 0 0 . 8 8 9 EXAMPLE. 1 .478 1 1 . 4 7 8 0. 78 6 0.377 INSTRUCT 0 .025 1 0. .025 0. ,013 0 . 9 0 8 2-WAY INT E R A C T I O N S 5 .872 3 1 . 9 5 7 1 . 040 0 . 3 7 6 CONCEPT EXAMPLE 0 .632 1 0. 6 3 2 0 .336 0. 5 6 3 CONCEPT INSTRUCT 0. .605 1 0. .605 0. . 3 2 2 0.571 EXAMPLE INSTRUCT 4 .717 1 4. .717 2. .507 0. 115 3-WAY I N T E R A C T I O N S 1 .834 1 1 .834 0 .975 0 . 3 2 5 CONCEPT EXAMPLE INSTRUCT 1 .834 1 1 . 834 0. ,975 0 . 3 2 5 E X P L A I N E D 9 .244 7 1 .321 0. .702 0 . 6 7 0 R E S I D U A L 3 3 3 .034 177 1 . 8 8 2 TOTAL 34 2 .278 184 1 , .860 200 Appendix C This appendix contains the c e n t r a l i t y ratings questionnaires used i n Study Two. The f i r s t questionnaire presents the features of love, followed by the version in which the features were l i s t e d i n reverse order. The next two pages consist of the versions of the love questionnaire in which subjects rated only hal f of the love a t t r i b u t e s . This i s followed by the commitment questionnaire. F i n a l l y , the l a s t page shows the version i n which the commitment a t t r i b u t e s were presented i n reverse order. 201 LOVE QUESTIONNAIRE The purpose of t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s t o d i s c o v e r which f e a t u r e s of LOVE are most c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e concept and which f e a t u r e s a r e l e a s t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . In' an e a r l i e r experiment, s u b j e c t s were gi v e n the concept "LOVE", and were asked t o l i a t a l l t h e a t t r i b u t e s or f e a t u r e s they c o u l d t h i n k of i n a few minutes. On the next page, you w i l l see the f e a t u r e s t h a t were l i s t e d . The f a c t t h a t each of the a t t r i b u t e s was l i s t e d by someone i n our p r e v i o u s study i n d i c a t e s t h a t each a t t r i b u t e probably i s , to some degree, a p a r t of LOVE. N e v e r t h e l e s s , some of the f e a t u r e a c l e a r l y seem more c e n t r a l t o , or more important i n , l o v e than o t h e r s . For example, i f g i v e n a l i s t o f a t t r i b u t e s f o r the concept of INTELLIGENCE, f e a t u r e a l i k e "having a h i g h I.Q." o r " g e t t i n g s t r a i g h t A'a i n u n i v e r s i t y " a r e probably good f e a t u r e a . A f e a t u r e l i k e " a b i l i t y t o s o l v e problems" i s p r o b a b l y a moderately good f e a t u r e . F e a t u r e s l i k e " f i n d i t easy t o f i l l out income tax forms" or "good at t e l l i n g j o k e s " might be c o n s i d e r e d poorer f e a t u r e s of i n t e l l i g e n c e . Note t h a t w h i l e i t ' s p o s s i b l e t h a t most i n t e l l i g e n t people can t e l l jokes extremely w e l l , t h i s f e a t u r e probably i a not moat c e n t r a l when you t h i n k about what the concept of i n t e l l i g e n c e means. For each of the f e a t u r e a on the next page, we would l i k e you t o t h i n k about what the concept of LOVE meana, and ask y o u r s e l f : "How c e n t r a l i s t h i s f e a t u r e to l o v e ? " Then r a t e how good or poor t h a t f e a t u r e i s u s i n g an 8 p o i n t s c a l e where l=extremely poor f e a t u r e of l o v e , and 8=extremely good f e a t u r e of l o v e . P l e a s e t r y t o use the e n t i r e s c a l e when making your r a t i n g a - - w e ' r e I n t e r e s t e d i n d i s c o v e r i n g the r e l a t i v e importance of each of the f e a t u r e s to the concept of l o v e . I f you complete t h i a q u e s t i o n n a i r e , I w i l l assume t h a t you have g i v e n your consent t o p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the study. Thank you very much f o r your h e l p . 202 1 2 3 4 extremely very moderately s l i g h t l y poor f e a t u r e 5 6 7 8 s l i g h t l y moderately vary extremely good f e a t u r e mutual u n c o n d i t i o n a l s a c r i f i c e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y attachment f r i e n d s h i p d e v o t i o n commitment t r u s t honesty contentment energy i n t i m a c y s u p p o r t i v e n e s s compassion a f f e c t i o n f o r g i v e n e s s openness p a t i e n c e excitement g i v i n g s e c u r i t y p r o t e c t ! v e n e s s f e e l f r e e t o t a l k about a n y t h i n g s h a r i n g c a r i n g concern f o r the o t h e r ' s w e l l - b e i n g e u p h o r i a b u t t e r f l i e s i n stomach dependency t h i n k i n g about the o t h e r a l l the time l i k i n g happiness want t o be with the person r e s p e c t p u t t i n g the ot h e r f i r s t m i s s i n g the person when not to g e t h e r t o u c h i n g l a u g h i n g g a z i n g a t the ot h e r s e x u a l appeal acary warm f e e l i n g s h e a r t r a t e i n c r e a s e s empathy f e e l r e l a x e d with o t h e r 203 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 a extremely vary Moderately s l i g h t l y ! s l i g h t l y moderately very extremely poor feature good f e a t u r e a c c e p t i n g the person the way s/he i s have a l o t i n common doing t h i n g s t o make the ot h e r happy p o s i t i v e o u t l o o k other i s very important makes you f e e l good about y o u r s e l f a d m i r a t i o n want best f o r the ot h e r u n c e r t a i n t y kind s e e i n g o n l y the person's good q u a l i t i e s u n d e r s t a n d i n g c l o s n e s s . needing each o t h e r s e x u a l p a s s i o n comfort i n t e r e s t i n t h e other l o n g l a a t i n g p h y s i c a l a t t r a c t i o n h e l p i n g wonderful f e e l i n g s l o y a l t y your age female male 204 2 3 4 extremely very moderately s l i g h t l y poor f e a t u r e 6 7 a • l i g h t l y moderately very extrem.lj good f e a t u r e f e e l f r e e t o t a l k about a n y t h i n g s h a r i n g c a r i n g concern f o r t h e o t h e r ' s w e l l - b e i n g e u p h o r i a b u t t e r f l i e s i n stomach dependency t h i n k i n g about the ot h e r a l l the time l i k i n g happiness _ want t o be with the person _ r e s p e c t _ p u t t i n g the o t h e r f i r s t _ m i s s i n g the person when not t o g e t h e r _ t o u c h i n g _ l a u g h i n g . g a z i n g a t the ot h e r . s e x u a l appeal . s c a r y warm f e e l i n g a h e a r t r a t e i n c r e a s e s empathy p r o t e c t l v e n e s s mutual u n c o n d i t i o n a l s a c r i f i c e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y attachment f r i e n d s h i p d e v o t i o n commitment t r u s t honesty contentment energy _ i n t i m a c y _ s u p p o r t i v e n e a s _ compassion _ a f f e c t i o n _ f o r g i v e n e s s . openness . p a t i e n c e . excitement g i v i n g s e c u r i t y f e e l r e l a x e d with o t h e r 205 4 ! 5 6 7 a extremely very moderately s l i g h t l y , 8 l i g h t i y m o d e r a t e l y v „ y e x t r e m e l y 1 good f e a t u r e poor f e a t u r e underatanding c l o s e n e s s a c c e p t i n g the peraon the way a/he i a have a l o t i n common . needing each o t h e r d o i n g t h i n g s t o make the o t h e r happy . s e x u a l paaaion p o s i t i v e o u t l o o k • comfort o t h e r i s very important . i n t e r e s t i n the other makes you f e e l good about y o u r a e l f l o n g l a a t i n g a d m i r a t i o n p h y s i c a l a t t r a c t i o n want beat f o r the ot h e r h e l p i n g u n c e r t a i n t y wonderful f e e l i n g s k i n d l o y a l t y s e e i n g o n l y the person's good q u a l i t i e s your age female male 206 1 2 3 4 extremely very moderately s l i g h t l y poor f e a t u r e 5 6 7 8 s l i g h t l y moderately very extremely good f e a t u r e mutual u n c o n d i t i o n a l s a c r i f i c e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y attachment f r i e n d s h i p d e v o t i o n commitment t r u s t honesty contentment energy i n t i m a c y s u p p o r t i v e n e s s compassion a f f e c t i o n f o r g i v e n e s s . openness p a t i e n c e excitement g i v i n g , s e c u r i t y p r o t e c t ! v e n e s s f e e l f r e e t o t a l k about a n y t h i n g s h a r i n g c a r i n g concern f o r the o t h e r ' s w e l l - b e i n g e u p h o r i a b u t t e r f l i e s i n stomach dependency t h i n k i n g about the other a l l the time l i k i n g happiness want t o be with the person your age female male 20 7 1 2 3 4 extremely very moderately a l i g h t l y poor f e a t u r e 5 6 7 d • l i g h t l y moderately very extremely good f e a t u r e r e a p e c t p u t t i n g the ot h e r f i r a t _ m i s s i n g t h e person when not t o g e t h e r _ t o u c h i n g _ l a u g h i n g _ g a z i n g a t t h e ot h e r _ s e x u a l appeal s c a r y . warm f e e l i n g s -h e a r t r a t e i n c r e a s e s . empathy . f e e l r e l a x e d with o t h e r . a c c e p t i n g the person the way s/he i s have a l o t i n common doing t h i n g s t o make the o t h e r happy p o a i t i v e o u t l o o k o t h e r i s v e r y important makes you f e e l good about y o u r s e l f a d m i r a t i o n want beat f o r the o t h e r u n c e r t a i n t y k i n d s e e i n g o n l y the person's good q u a l i t i e s u nderstanding c l o s e n e s s needing each o t h e r _ s e x u a l p a s s i o n comfort i n t e r e s t i n the ot h e r l o n g l a s t i n g p h y s i c a l a t t r a c t i o n h e l p i n g wonderful f e e l i n g a l o y a l t y your age female male 208 COMMITMENT QUESTIONNAIRE The purpose o f t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s t o d i s c o v e r which f e a t u r e s o f COMMITMENT are moat c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f the concept and which f e a t u r e a a r e l e a s t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . In an e a r l i e r experiment. s u b j e c t s were g i v e n the concept "COMMITMENT" and were asked t o l i s t a l l the a t t r i b u t e s o r f e a t u r e s they c o u l d t h i n k o f i n a few minutes. On the next page, you w i l l see the f e a t u r e s t h a t were l i s t e d . That f a c t t h a t each o f the a t t r i b u t e s was l i s t e d by someone i n our p r e v i o u s study i n d i c a t e s t h a t each a t t r i b u t e p r o b a b l y i s , t o some degree, a p a r t of COMMITMENT. N e v e r t h e l e s s , some o f the f e a t u r e s c l e a r l y seem more c e n t r a l t o , or more important i n , commitment than o t h e r s . For example, i f giv e n a l i s t o f a t t r i b u t e s f o r the concept o f INTELLIGENCE, f e a t u r e s l i k e "having a hi g h I.Q." o r " g e t t i n g s t r a i g h t A's i n u n i v e r s i t y " are probably good f e a t u r e a . A f e a t u r e l i k e " a b i l i t y t o s o l v e problems" i a probably a moderately good f e a t u r e . F e a t u r e a l i k e " f i n d i t easy t o f i l l out income tax forma" or "good a t t e l l i n g j o k e s " might be c o n s i d e r e d poorer f e a t u r e s o f i n t e l l i g e n c e . Note t h a t w h i l e i t ' s p o s s i b l e t h a t most i n t e l l i g e n t people can t e l l jokes extremely w e l l , t h i a f e a t u r e probably i s not most c e n t r a l when you t h i n k about what the concept of i n t e l l i g e n c e means. For each of the f e a t u r e a on the next page, we would l i k e you t o t h i n k about what the concept of COMMITMENT means, and ask y o u r s e l f : "How c e n t r a l i s t h i s f e a t u r e to commitment?" Then r a t e how good or poor t h a t f e a t u r e i a u s i n g an 3 p o i n t s c a l e where l=extremely poor f e a t u r e of commitment, and 8=extremely good f e a t u r e o f commitment. P l e a s e t r y t o use the e n t i r e s c a l e when making your r a t i n g s - - w e ' r e i n t e r e s t e d i n d i s c o v e r i n g the r e l a t i v e importance o f each of the f e a t u r e s t o the concept of commitment. I f you complete t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e , I w i l l assume t h a t you have g i v e n your consent t o p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the stud y . Thank you very much f o r your h e l p . 209 extremely v a r y . o d e M t . l y a i i g h t i y ; | m i i g h t x y m o d e r ^ i y _ y good f e a t u r e poor f e a t u r e concern f o r the o t h e r ' s w e l l - b e i n g r e l i a b l e f e e l i n g t rapped f a i t h f u l n e s s g i v i n g _ mutual agreement _ l o y a l t y _ l i v i n g up to your word _ p u t t i n g the o t h e r f i r s t _ r e s p o n s i b i l i t y _ g i v i n g your best e f f o r t _ a t t e n t i o n i s focused on the o t h e r . working out problems l o v e m a t u r i t y working towards common g o a l s l o n g l a t i n g t h i n k about the other a l l the time g i v i n g and t a k i n g "being t h e r e f o r the o t h e r i n good and honesty s h a r i n g t r u s t s a c r i f i c e _ l i k i n g _ hard work _ p e r s e r v e r a n c e _ a high p r i o r i t y _ d e v o t i o n _ a promise _ r e s p e c t . s u p p o r t i v e n e s s . attachment . h e l p i n g . c a r i n g o b l i g a t i o n a f f e c t i o n contentment c o n s c i o u s d e c i s i o n bad times s e c u r i t y your age female 210 4 i 5 6 7 8 extremely very moderately . l i g h t l y ! a l i g h t l y moderately very extremely poor f e a t u r e good f e a t u r e _ honesty _ s h a r i n g _ t r u s t _ s a c r i f i c e _ l i k i n g hard work _ per a e r v e r a n c e _ a h i g h p r i o r i t y d e v o t i o n a promise . r e s p e c t . s u p p o r t i v e n e s s attachment h e l p i n g c a r i n g o b l i g a t i o n a f f e c t i o n contentment c o n s c i o u s d e c i s i o n s e c u r i t y _ concern f o r t h e o t h e r ' s w e l l - b e i n g _ r e l i a b l e _ f e e l i n g t r a p p e d _ f a i t h f u l n e s s g i v i n g mutual agreement _ l o y a l t y l i v i n g up t o your word p u t t i n g the o t h e r f i r s t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y g i v i n g your b e s t e f f o r t a t t e n t i o n i s focused on the o t h e r working out problems l o v e m a t u r i t y working towards common g o a l s l o n g l a a t i n g t h i n k about the o t h e r a l l the time g i v i n g and t a k i n g "being t h e r e " f o r the other i n good and bad timea your age female male A p p e n d i x D Summary T a b l e o f t h e A n a 1 y s l s o f V a r i a n c e o n C n t r a l l t v R a t i n g , n - • - v e F e a t u r e A n r n . , Q u e s t 1 o n n  BY R A T I N G ORDER SUM OF MEAN S I G N I F SOURCE OF V A R I A T I O N SQUARES PF SQUARE F OF F M A I N E F F E C T S 0.238 2 0 . 1 1 9 0, , 271 0 . 7 6 3 ORDER 0.238 2 0 . 1 1 9 0. 271 0 . 7 6 3 E X P L A I N E D 0 . 2 3 8 2 0 . 1 1 9 0. 271 0 . 7 6 3 R E S I D U A L 31 . 193 71 0 . 4 3 9 TOTAL 31 .431 73 0 .431 1 Summary T a b l e o f t h e A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e o n C e n t r a l i t y R a t i n g s o f C o m m i t m e n t F e a t u r e s A c r o s s Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s R A T I N G BY ORDER SUM OF MEAN S I G N I F SOURCE OF V A R I A T I O N SQUARES DF SQUARE F OF F MAIN E F F E C T S 0 . 0 6 5 1 0 . 0 6 5 0. 117 0 . 7 3 3 ORDER 0 . 0 6 5 1 0 . 0 6 5 0. 1 17 0 . 7 3 3 E X P L A I N E D 0 . 0 6 5 1 0 . 0 6 5 0. 117 0 . 7 3 3 R E S I O U A L 41 .104 74 0 . 5 5 5 TOTAL 4 1 . 1 6 9 75 0 . 5 4 9 Summary T a b l e o f t h e A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e o n C e n t r a l i t y R a t i n g s o f S h a r e d v s U n i q u e A t t r i b u t e s BETWEEN S U B J E C T FACTORS ARE: A - CONCEPT : 1 l o v e , 2 c o m m i t W I T H I N S U B J E C T FACTORS ARE: B - A T T R I B 1 SHARED , 2 UNIQUE SOURCE S-WITHIN B AB BS-WITHIN SUM OF SQUARES 4.903 1 4 1 . 0 4 3 10.358 9.004 1 7 . 8 1 3 DEGREES OF FREEDOM 1 . 148. 1 . 1 . 148. MEAN SQUARES 4.903 0 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 5 8 9.004 O. 120 F R ATIO 5. 145 8 6 . 0 6 6 7 4 . 8 1 0 P R O B A B I L I T Y 0 . 0 2 5 0.0O1 0.001 214 Appendix E This appendix contains the experimental materials f o r Study Three. F i r s t , a sample of the statements booklet i s included. The f i r s t page depicts a sample love statement; the second page a sample commitment statement. The booklet labeled "QUESTIONNAIRE 1" consists of the interference task i n s t r u c t i o n s , followed by the r e c a l l memory i n s t r u c t i o n s . The booklet labeled "QUESTIONNAIRE 2" contains the recognition memory statements f o r love. This i s followed by the recognition memory statements f o r commitment. .215 S T A T E M E N T S 216 Chria and Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p i s characterized by contentment. PLEASE DO NOT TURN THE PAGE UNTIL INSTRUCTED TO DO SO 217 C h r i . and Pat', relationahip ±. characteriz.d by giving « „ d taking. PLEASE DO MOT TURN THE PAGE UNTIL INSTRUCTED TO DO SO .218 Q U E S T I O N N A I R E 1 On t h i s page, take a few minutes t o l i a t as many of the Canadian p r o v i n c e s as you can, i n a l p h a b e t i c a l o r d e r . On t h i s psg«, w r i t s down as many o f the statements presented i n the b o o k l e t about C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p aa you can remember. Be as a c c u r a t e as p o s s i b l e , but don't l e a v e out any atatements j u s t because you c a n ' t remember the exact wording. 221 Q U E S T I O N N A I R E 2 222 Below i« a s e r i e s o f t t a t i M i i t i that, you nay or may not have seen i n the b o o k l e t o f statements you read e a r l i e r . For each statement, c i r c l e "YES" i f you t h i n k t h e statement appeared i n the b o o k l e t and " N O " i f you t h i n k t h e statement was not i n t h e b o o k l e t . Then i n d i c a t e how c o n f i d e n t you a r e t h a t you d i d o r d i d not see t h e statement. u s i n g a s c a l e of 1 t o 4, where l»not a t a l l c o n f i d e n t and 4»very c o n f i d e n t . DID YOU SEE HOW CONFIDENT THIS STATEMENT? ARE YOU? C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO 1 2 3 4 by d e v o t i o n . C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO 1 2 3 4 by compassion. C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO 1 2 3 4 by l a u g h i n g . C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO 1 2 3 4 by honesty. C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO 1 2 3 4 by s a c r i f i c e . C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO 1 2 3 4 by i n t i m a c y . C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO 1 2 3 4 by t o u c h i n g . C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n a h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO 1 2 3 4 by g a z i n g a t each o t h e r . C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO 1 2 3 4 by g i v i n g . C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO 1 2 3 4 by f e e l i n g good about themselves. C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n a h i p i a c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO 1 2 3 4 by s e x u a l p a s s i o n . C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO 1 2 3 4 by a p o s i t i v e o u t l o o k . C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO 1 2 3 4 by t h i n k i n g about each o t h e r . C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO 1 2 3 4 by needing each o t h e r . C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO 1 2 3 4 by concern f o r each o t h e r . C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n a h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO 1 2 3 4 by energy. 223 DID YOU SEE HOW CONFIDENT THIS STATEMENT? ARE YOU? C h r i a and Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p i a c h a r a c t e r i z e d by kindness. C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a d m i r a t i o n . C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a c c e p t i n g t h e o t h e r as s/he i s . C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by underatanding. i C h r i a and Pat'a r e l a t i o n s h i p i a c h a r a c t e r i z e d by c l o s e n e s s . C h r i a and Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by contentment. C h r i a and Pat'a r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d as mutual. YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 C h r i a and Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p i a c h a r a c t e r i z e d as u n c o n d i t i o n a l . YES NO 1 2 3 4 C h r i a and Pat'a r e l a t i o n s h i p i a c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO by f o r g i v e n e s s . C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO by p h y s i c a l a t t r a c t i o n . C h r i a and Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p i a c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO by wanting t o be with each o t h e r . C h r i a and Pat'a r e l a t i o n s h i p i a c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO by c o m f o r t i n g each o t h e r . C h r i a and Pat'a r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO by happineaa. C h r i a and Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO by u n c e r t a i n t y . C h r i a and Pat'a r e l a t i o n s h i p i a c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO by p a t i e n c e . C h r i a and Pat'a r e l a t i o n s h i p i a c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO by excitement. C h r i s and Pat'a r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO by miaaing each o t h e r when a p a r t . 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 C h r i a and Pat'a by a f f e c t i o n . r e l a t i o n s h i p i a c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO 1 2 3 4 224 DID YOU SEE HOW CONFIDENT THIS STATEMENT? ARE YOU? C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO . 1 2 3 4 by having a l o t i n coaaon. C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO 1 2 3 4 by f r i e n d s h i p . C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO 1 2 3 4 as l o n g l a s t i n g . C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO 1 2 3 4 by c a r i n g . C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO 1 2 3 4 by i n t e r e s t i n each o t h e r . C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO 1 2 3 4 by doing t h i n g s f o r each o t h e r . 225 Below i s a s e r i e s o f statements that, you aay or aay not have seen i n t h e b o o k l e t o f statements you read e a r l i e r . For each statement, c i r c l e "YES" i f you t h i n k t h e statement appeared i n t h e b o o k l e t and "NO" i f you t h i n k t h e statement waa not i n the b o o k l e t . Then i n d i c a t e how c o n f i d e n t you a r e t h a t you d i d o r d i d not see t h e statement. u s i n g a s c a l e of 1 t o 4. where l=not a t a l l c o n f i d e n t and 4=very c o n f i d e n t . DID YOU SEE HOW CONFIDENT THIS STATEMENT? ARE YOU? C h r i s and P a t ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO 1 2 3 4 by honesty. C h r i a and Pat'a r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO 1 2 3 4 by pe r a e r v e r a n c e . C h r i a and Pat'a r e l a t i o n s h i p i a c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO 1 2 3 4 by concern f o r each o t h e r . C h r i s and Pat'a r e l a t i o n a h i p i a c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO 1 2 3 4 by s a c r i f i c e . C h r i a and Pat'a r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO 1 2 3 4 by m a t u r i t y . C h r i a and Pat'a r e l a t i o n a h i p i a c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO 1 2 3 4 by contentment. C h r i a and Pat's r e l a t i o n a h i p i a c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO 1 2 3 4 by d e v o t i o n . C h r i a and Pat'a r e l a t i o n a h i p i a c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO 1 2 3 4 by working toward common g o a l a . C h r i a and Pat'a r e l a t i o n a h i p i a c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO 1 2 3 4 by r e a p e c t . C h r i a and Pat'a r e l a t i o n a h i p i a c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO 1 2 3 4 by attachment. C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n a h i p i a c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO 1 2 3 4 by r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . C h r i a and Pat'a r e l a t i o n a h i p i a c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO 1 2 3 4 by c a r i n g . C h r i a and Pat'a r e l a t i o n s h i p i a c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO 1 2 3 4 by t h i n k i n g about each o t h e r . C h r i s and Pat'a r e l a t i o n a h i p i a c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO 1 2 3 4 by l o y a l t y . C h r i a and Pat's r e l a t i o n a h i p i a c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO 1 2 3 4 by o b l i g a t i o n . C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO 1 2 3 4 by l o v e . 226 DID YOU SEE HOW CONFIDENT THIS STATEMENT? ARE YOU? C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by f a i t h f u l n e s s . YES NO 1 2 3 4 C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by s e c u r i t y . YES NO 1 2 3 4 C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by t r u s t . YES NO 1 2 3 4 C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by being r e l i a b l e . ' YES NO 1 2 3 4 C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by h e l p f u l n e s s . YES NO 1 2 3 4 C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n a h i p l a c h a r a c t e r i z e d aa a promise. YES NO 1 2 3 4 C h r i s and Pat'a r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d as a high p r i o r i t y . YES NO 1 2 3 4 C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n a h i p l a c h a r a c t e r i z e d by l i k i n g . YES NO 1 2 3 4 C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d as a c o n s c i o u s d e c i s i o n . YES NO 1 2 3 4 C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n a h i p l a c h a r a c t e r i z e d by f e e l i n g trapped. YES NO 1 2 3 4 C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n a h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by l i v i n g up t o t h e i r word. YES NO 1 2 3 4 C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p i a c h a r a c t e r i z e d by s h a r i n g . YES NO 1 2 3 4 C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p i a c h a r a c t e r i z e d by g i v i n g . YES NO 1 2 3 4 C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n a h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by g i v i n g t h e i r best e f f o r t . YES NO 1 2 3 4 C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n a h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by p u t t i n g each o t h e r f i r s t . YES NO 1 2 3 4 C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by support!veness. YES NO 1 2 3 4 C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n a h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by "being t h e r e " f o r each o t h e r . YES NO 1 2 3 4 C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d as a mutual agreement. YES NO 1 2 3 4 227 DID YOU SEE HOW CONFIDENT THIS STATEMENT? ARE YOU? C h r i a and Pat'a r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO by f o c u s s i n g a t t e n t i o n on each o t h e r . C h r i a and Pat'a r e l a t i o n a h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO - by a f f e c t i o n . C h r i s and Pat'a r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO by working out problems. C h r i s and P a t ' s r e l a t i o n a h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO by g i v i n g and t a k i n g . C h r i s and Pat's r e l a t i o n a h i p i a c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO as l o n g l a a t i n g . C h r i a and Pat'a r e l a t i o n a h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d YES NO as hard work. A p p e n d i x F Summary T a b l e o f t h e A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e f o r R e c o g n i t i o n M e mory f o r F e a t u r e s o f L o v e BETWEEN S U B J E C T FACTORS ARE: A - GROUP 1 W I T H I N S U B J E C T FACTORS ARE: B - A T T R I B 1 CENTRAL 2 P E R I P H SOURCE S-WITHIN B AB B S - W I T H I N SUM OF SQUARES 0.081 2 6 6 . 3 5 2 0.212 1 5 . 4 0 3 9 6 . 8 8 3 DEGREES OF FREEDOM 1 . 5 8 . 1 . 1 . 5 8 . MEAN SQUARES 0.0 8 1 4 . 5 9 2 0 . 2 1 2 1 5 . 4 0 3 1 . 6 70 F RATIO 0.018 O. 127 9.221 P R O B A B I L I T Y 0 . 8 9 5 0 . 7 2 3 0 . 0 0 4 Summary T a b l e o f t h e A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e f o r R e c o g n i t i o n Memory f o r F e a t u r e s o f C o m m i t m e n t BETWEEN S U B J E C T FACTORS ARE: A - GROUP 1 , 2 W I T H I N S U B J E C T FACTORS ARE: B - A T T R I B 1 CENTRAL , 2 P E R I P H SOURCE S-WITHIN B AB B S - W I T H I N SUM OF SQUARES 9.075 1 5 4 . 4 1 8 1 .008 0.408 9 6 . 0 8 6 DEGREES OF FREEDOM 1 . 58 . 1 . 1 . 58 . MEAN SQUARES 9.075 2.662 1 .008 0.408 1 .657 F R ATIO 3.409 0 . 6 0 9 0 . 2 4 6 P R O B A B I L I T Y 0 . 0 7 0 0.438 0.621 ho ID Summary T a b l e o f t h e A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e f o r F a l s e R e c o g n i t i o n Memory f o r F e a t u r e s o f L o v e BETWEEN S U B J E C T FACTORS ARE: A - GROUP 1 , 2 WITHIN S U B J E C T FACTORS ARE: B - 1 FCENTRAL , 2 F P E R I P H SOURCE S-WITHIN B AB B S - W I T H I N SUM OF SQUARES 0 . 3 0 0 2 4 8 . 6 6 7 1 6 8 . 0 3 3 0 . 3 0 0 1 1 6 . 6 6 7 OEGREES OF FREEDOM 1 . 58 . 1 . 1 . 5 8 . MEAN SQUARES 0 . 3 0 0 4.287 1 6 8 . 0 3 3 0 . 3 0 0 2.011 F R ATIO 0 . 0 7 0 8 3 . 5 3 6 0. 149 P R O B A B I L I T Y 0 . 7 9 2 0.001 0 . 7 0 1 O Summary T a b l e o f t h e A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e f o r F a l s e R e c o g n i t i o n Memory f o r F e a t u r e s o f C o m m i t m e n t BETWEEN S U B J E C T FACTORS ARE: A - GROUP 1 , 2 W I T H I N S U B J E C T FACTORS ARE: B - 1 FCENTRAL , 2 F P E R I P H SOURCE S-WITHIN B AB B S - W I T H I N SUM OF SQUARES 1 .008 2 5 7 . 0 8 3 8 8 . 4 0 8 0.008 1 0 6 . 0 8 3 DEGREES OF FREEDOM 1 . 5 8 . 1 . 1 . 5 8 . MEAN SQUARES 1 .008 4.432 8 8 . 4 0 8 0.008 1 .829 F RATIO 0.228 4 8 . 3 3 6 0 . 0 0 5 P R O B A B I L I T Y 0 . 6 3 5 0.001 0.947 Summary T a b l e o f t h e A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e f o r R e c a l l Memory f o r F e a t u r e s o f L o v e BETWEEN S U B J E C T FACTORS ARE: A - GROUP 1 W I T H I N S U B J E C T FACTORS ARE: B - A T T R I B 1 CENTRAL 2 P E R I P H SOURCE S-WITHIN B AB B S - W I T H I N SUM OF SQUARES 1 .875 135.21 7 21 .675 2 9 . 0 0 8 1 0 3 . 8 1 7 DEGREES OF FREEDOM 1 . 5 8 . 1 . 1 . 5 8 . MEAN SQUARES 1 .875 2.331 21 .675 2 9 . 0 0 8 1 . 7 9 0 F R ATIO 0.804 1 2 . 1 0 9 16.206 P R O B A B I L I T Y 0.374 0.001 0.001 to Summary T a b l e o f t h e A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e f o r R e c a l l Memory f o r F e a t u r e s o f C o m m i t m e n t BETWEEN S U B J E C T FACTORS ARE: A - GROUP 1 , 2 W I T H I N S U B J E C T FACTORS ARE: B - A T T R I B 1 CENTRAL . 2 P E R I P H SOURCE S-WITHIN B AB B S - W I T H I N SUM OF SQUARES 1 .200 129.2 6 7 2 . 7 0 0 0 . 3 0 0 9 2 . 0 0 0 DEGREES OF FREEDOM 1 . 58 . 1 . 1 . 5 8 . MEAN SQUARES 1 .200 2 . 2 2 9 2 . 7 0 0 0 . 3 0 0 1 .586 F R A T I O 0 . 5 3 9 1 .702 O. 189 P R O B A B I L I T Y 0.466 O. 197 0 . 6 6 5 Ul Summary T a b l e o f t h e A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e f o r F a l s e R e c a l l Memory f o r F e a t u r e s o f L o v e BETWEEN S U B J E C T FACTORS ARE: A - GROUP 1 W I T H I N S U B J E C T FACTORS ARE: B - A T T R I B 1 FCENTRAL 2 F P E R I P H SOURCE S-WITHIN B AB B S - W I T H I N SUM OF SQUARES 0. 0 3 3 2 6 . 9 3 3 16.133 0.0 2 8 . 8 6 7 DEGREES OF FREEDOM 1 . 58 . 1 . 1 . 5 8 . MEAN SQUARES 0 . 0 3 3 0.464 1 6 . 1 3 3 0.0 0.498 F R ATIO 0 . 0 7 2 3 2 . 4 1 6 0.0 P R O B A B I L I T Y 0 . 7 9 0 0 . 0 0 1 0 . 9 9 9 •4^ BETWEEN S U B J E C T FACTORS ARE: A - GROUP 1 , 2 W I T H I N S U B J E C T FACTORS ARE: B - A T T R I B 1 FCENTRAL . 2 F P E R I P H SOURCE S-WITHIN B AB BS-WITHIN SUM OF SQUARES 3.675 2 6 . 1 5 0 14.008 1 .875 2 3 . 6 1 7 DEGREES OF FREEDOM 1 . 5 8 . 1 . 1 . 5 8 . MEAN SQUARES 3.675 0.451 14.008 1.875 0.407 F RATIO 8.151 3 4 . 4 0 3 4 .605 P R O B A B I L I T Y 0 . 0 0 6 0.001 0.036 236 Appendix G This appendix contains the i n s t r u c t i o n s given to subjects i n Study Four, followed by the f i v e versions of the love questionnaire. Next, the three versions of the commitment questionnaire are presented. 2 3 7 This questionnaire i a pari of a larger project on the aorta of things people have in aind when they hear and uae vorda. In thia atudy. we're interested in how peculiar or how natural certain sentences containing hedges sound. Hedges are words l i k e "sort of*, "kind of", "somewhat" and ao on. They serve as q u a l i f i e r s in sentences. If i t ' s not appropriate to use a q u a l i f i e r , inserting a hedge in a sentence w i l l yield a peculiar sounding sentence. For axaaple, i f told that Jane i s an extravert, the aentence "Jane i s sort of outgoing" probably sounds rather peculiar to toat people, becauae extraverta t y p i c a l l y are outgoing--not just "sort of" outgoing. On the other hand, a sentence l i k e "Jans i s sort of iapulsiva". probably sounds rather natural, because extraverta can be iapulaive, but aren't necessarily impulsive. Thus, the use of the hedge "sort of" i s appropriate in this sentence. In t h i s study, we're not interested in sentencea about extraverta. Rather, we are interested in how peculiar or natural sentencea about interpersonal relationships aound. Selow i s a series of sentences about the relationship between two people vho love each other, Chria and Pat. For some of these sentences, the uae of a- hedge i s appropriate, and therefore the sentence sounds natural. For other sentencea. the use of a hedge i a inappropriate, resulting in a rather peculiar sounding sentence. Your taak i a to read each aentence to yourself and rate how peculiar or natural i t sounds to you. Don't spend txae wondering i f your answer i s right or wrong. There are no right or wrong answers, so just baae your response on your f i r s t impression from reeding the sentence. Thank you very much for your participation. 238 1 2 extremely natural sounding extremely peculiar sounding Pat somewhat wants to bo with Chris. Pat i s kind of g i v i n g . Their relationship i s s o r t of characterized by kindness. Pat i s kind of committed to Chris. Pet kind of needs Chris. Pat s o r t of admires Chris. Pat sort of f e e l s good about herself. Pat somewhat helps Chris. Pat kind of gazes at Chris. Pat sort of trusts Chris. Their r e l a t i o n s h i p i s characterized by being sort of responsible. Pat i s somewhat phy s i c a l l y attracted to Chris. Pat sort of snares with Chris. Their relationship 1* somewhat mutual. 239 * F T * P **** •O««B1 very peculiar with tiadaaa i s . j , , , ^ » t t i w w i l l a«»«Mi M » « i _ .. • • I I J M xm cava, vail® . _ ***r natural. Rata hot* peculiar or setu r e l •evaaa o u a f the) following scale: • w s t r e a e l f • . 7 aataral sounding peculiar eouadins Pat hied of respects Chria. Pat feels* sort oi* e n e r g e t i c Pat kind of comforts Chria. Pat i a sort of honest with Chria. Pat sort of understands C h r i s . Their relationahip Is somewhat characterized by wonderful f e e l i n g s . Pat l a aoaowhat intimate- with Chris. Their relationship i s sosewhet characterized by touching. Pat s o r t of f e e l s b u t t e r f l i e s in his stoaach. Pat kind of accepts Chris the way she i s . Pet aort of l i k e s Chria. Pat s o r t of has a l o t in common with Chris. Pet somewhat does things f o r Chris. Their r e l a t i o n s h i p i s kind of e x c i t i n g . 240 Given that you know Chris and Pet l e v . each other. some of thee, sentence* about thexr r e l a t i o n s h i p w i l l sound very peculiar with hedges in the., while others w i l l sound very natural. Rate how peculiar or natural each sentence sounds using the following scale: 1 2 3 4 5 s 7 extremely . natural f u n d i n g p e c u l S r ^ u n d i n g -, p«t i s sort of attached to Chris. Pot i s somewhat happy i n h i s relationship with Chris. • • P«t i s kind of open with Chris. . Pst f e e l s sort of content i n h i s relationship with Chris. _ Pat i s sort of patient with Chris. Pat sees h i s re l a t i o n s h i p with Chris as kind of scary. Their r e l a t i o n s h i p i s somewhat characterized by friendship. Their r e l a t i o n s h i p i s sort of characterized by compassion. Their r e l a t i o n s h i p i s somewhat characterized by sexual passion. Pst f e e l s sort of close to Chris. Their r e l a t i o n s h i p i s somewhat uncertain. Pat kind of misses Chris when they're apart. • P«t i s kind of concerned about Chris' well-being. •• t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p es sort of unconditional. 241 Givaa that you know Chris and Pat lojLt. t w h other, eoae of these HBUMMI •bout t h e i r relationship w i l l sound -~»ry p e c u l i a r with hedges i n the*, while other* w i l l sound very natural. Rats bow peculiar or natural each sonteae* •ouada uaiag the following *eelet * 2 3 4 9 ft 7 extremely •xtrwnwiy natural aoundlag p*c u l t * r sounding •• , P«t sort of soke* a o c r l f l o e * f a r C h r i s . Pat l a sort of support-** of Chris. . P a t says that C a r l s l a aoaawhat lnportant to hsr. - Pat somewhat ssss only Gbrlm' good q u a l i t i e s . Pat l a sort of l o y a l to C a r l * . . Their r e l a t i o n s h i p i« soaevhst characterized by sexual appeal. - Pat f o o l s sort of euphoria. • ,., Pat l a soaewhat affectionate with C h r i s . Pat s o r t of forgives Chrla. Pat s o r t of puts Chrla f i r s t . Pat kind of care* f o r Carta. »*ad of thinks shoot Chris a l l the t i n e . Pat l a kind of davotod ta Chrla. 242 Given that you know Chris and Pat l e v aach othar. some of these sentences •bout t h e i r relationahip w i l l sound very peculiar with hedge* i n thee, while others w i l l sound *ery natural. Rate how peculiar or natural each sentence sounds using the following scale: 2 2 3 - 4 5 6 7 extremely natural sounding peculiar sounding ______ Pat i s somewhat interested in Chris. _______ Their r e l s t i o n s h i p i s sort of eharsctsrizsd by a p o s i t i v e outlook. P«t f e e l s sort of relaxed with Chris. „ P«t f e e l s kind of protective of Chris. P«t f e e l s somewhat secure i n h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p with Chris. Pat f e e l s sort of free to t a l k about anything. .. Their r e l a t i o n s h i p i s sosewhat characterized by laughing. •• P*t kind of f e e l s h i s hesrtrate Increase when h* >s with C h r i s . _______ Their r e l a t i o n s h i p i s characterized by sosewhat wars f e e l i n g s . P«t kind of wants the best f o r Chris. i P«t i s sort of dependent on Chris. Pet sees t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p aa kind of l o n g l s s t i n g . Their r e l a t i o n s h i p i s kind of characterized by empathy. 243 This qu««tionn«^r« i s part of a larger pro3act on the aorta ox* things people have in amd when they hear sad use words. In t h i s study, we're interested in how peculiar or how natural c e r t a i n sentence* containing hedges sound. Hedges are words i l k * "sort of. "hind of", "eoeewhat" and so on. They serve as q u a l i f i e r s in sentences. If It's not appropriate to use • q u a l i f i e r , i n s e r t i n g a hedge in a sentence w i l l y i e l d • peculiar sounding sentence. For exaaple. i f told that Jane i s an extravert, the aentence "Jane i s sort of outgoing" probably sounds rather peculiar to aost people, because extraverta t y p i c a l l y are outgoing--not just "sort of" outgoing. On the other hand, a sentence l i k e "Jane i s aort of impulsive", probably aounds rather natural, becauae extraverta can be lapuleive, but aren't necessarily mpulsive. Thus, the use of the hedge "sort of" 1 * appropriate i n t h i s sentence. In t h i s study, we're not interested in sentences about extraverta. Rather, we are ihtereated in how peculiar or natural aentencea about interperaonal r e l a t i o n s h i p * aound. Below l a a aeries of sentences about the r e l a t i o n s h i p between two people who are cciimtted to each other, Chris and Pat. For aoae of these eantencea. the use of a hedge i s appropriate, and therefore the sentence aounda natural. For other aentencea, the uae of a hedge l a Inappropriate, r e s u l t i n g in a rather peculiar sounding sentence. Your task i a to read each aentence to yourself and rate how peculiar or natural i t sounda to you. Oon't apend tl a e wondering If your answer i s right or wrong. There are no r i g h t or wrong answers, so just base your response on your f i r s t lepreesion froa reading the aentence. Thank you very «uc!t for your p a r t i c i p a t i o n . 244 Given that, you know Pet and C h r i a e r e oommitted to each other, aoae of t h e s e aentence* about t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i l l aound very peculiar with hedges i a thea, while others w i l l sound very natural. Rate how peculiar or natural each sentence sounds using t h e following scale: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 extremely extremely natural sounding peculiar sounding Pat somewhat cares f o r Chris. Their relationship i s kind of characterized by maturity. Pat sort of se e s t h e i r relationship as a mutual agreement. Pat f e e l s kind of obligated to Chris. Pet somewhat l i v e s up to her word. Pat f e e l s somewhat content. Pet i s sort of supportive of Chris. Their relationship Is somewhat characterized by working out problem*. Pet end Chris s o r t of work toward common goala. Pat i s sort of concerned about Chris' well-being. Pat i s sort of r e l i a b l e . Pat kind of sees the re l a t i o n s h i p as hard work. Pat kind of loves Chria. 245 Given that you know Pat and Chria are committed to each other, eon* of these sentences about t h e i r r e l a tionship w i l l sound very peculiar with hedges i s then, while others w i l l sound very natural. Rate how peculiar or natural each sentence sounds using the following scale: 1 2 3 4 3 6 7 extremely extremely natural sounding peculiar sounding Pat sees h i s relationship with Chris as somewhat longlaating. Pat i s sort of giv i n g . Pat kind of trusts Chris. Pat i s sort of affectionate with Chris. Pat i s kind of l o y a l to Chris. Pat's attention i s aort of focussed on Chris. Pat kind of thinks about Chris a l l the time. Pat sort of gives h i s best e f f o r t . Pat i s somewhat attached to Chria. Pat somewhat helps Chria. Pat somewhat respects Chris. Pat i s somewhat f a i t h f u l to Chria. Pat kind of shores with Chria. 246 wr.U..cw about .-.hexr r e l a t i o n s h i p w i l l aouna very seoulxar with bedae* xn the., while other, w i l l emaa* waxy oafcarai. ftete) he* peculiar or a a * £ 2 ^ « £ sentence sound* using the) follow!Kg seeies 1 2 S 4 • * 7 extresely natural sounding ««coU«» Pet l a hind of devoted t o Chria. Their relationship i s so r t of ehereoterixed by giving and taking. Pet soaewhat l i k e s Chris. Pat sees the relationahip as kind of « proviso. Their relationahip i s characterized by being sort of respc Pat f e e l * sort of trapped i n the re l a t i o n s h i p . Pat i s kind of honest with Chris. Pat sees the rel a t i o n s h i p a* kind of a conscious decision. Pat sees the rel a t i o n s h i p as sort of a high p r i o r i t y . Pat aosewhat t r i e s to he there f o r Chris i n good and bed t i n e s . Pat sort of puts Chris f i r s t . Pat soaewhst perserveree i n her relationship with Chris. Pat soaewhat makes s a c r i f i c e * f o r Chris. Pat f e e l * kind of secure i n her relationship with Chris. A p p e n d i x H Summary T a b l e o f t h e A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e o n P e c u l i a r i t y R a t i n g s f o r F e a t u r e s o f L o v e W I T H I N S U B J E C T FACTORS ARE: A - A T T R I B 1 CENTRAL 2 P E R I P H SOURCE S-WITHIN A AS-WITHIN SUM OF SQUARES 6.612 7 .05 1 1 .877 DEGREES OF FREEDOM 19. 1 . 19. MEAN SQUARES 0.348 7 .051 0 . 0 9 9 RATIO P R O B A B I L I T Y 71 .386 0.001 4^  Summary T a b l e o f t h e A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e o n P e c u l i a r i t y R a t i n g s f o r F e a t u r e s o f C o m m i t m e n t W I T H I N S U B J E C T FACTORS ARE: A - A T T R I B 1 CENTRAL , 2 P E R I P H SOURCE SUM OF SQUARES DEGREES OF FREEDOM MEAN SQUARES F RATIO P R O B A B I L I T Y S-WITHIN 6.284 19. 0 .331 AS-WITHIN 3.969 2.811 1 . 19. 3 . 969 O. 148 26 .830 0.001 to 0 0 249 Appendix I Thia appendix contains the inatructiona f o r r a t i n g the types of relationahipa according to degree of love, followed by the inatructiona f o r r a t i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p s according to degree of commitment. The l a s t two pages contain the 53 types of r e l a t i o n s h i p s that were rated. 250 RELATIONSHIP TYPES QUESTIONNAIRE T h i a study i s p a r t o f a. l a r g a r study on i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . On the next page, you w i l l f i n d a l i a t o f v s r i o u s k i n d s o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h a t nay or say not i n v o l v e commitment. For each one, ask y o u r s e l f , "To what e x t e n t .ia t h i s s committed r e l a t i o n s h i p ? " I f you t h i n k the r e l a t i o n a h i p i s d e f i n i t e l y not a committed r e l a t i o n a h i p , g i v e i t a 1 which meana "not a t a l l committed". I f you t h i n k a p a r t i c u l a r r e l a t i o n a h i p i s d e f i n i t e l y a committed r e l a t i o n a h i p , g i v e i t a 9 which means "extremely committed". A 5 would mean the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s moderately committed. Don't worry about why you t h i n k each r e l a t i o n a h i p i a or i s not c h a r a c t e r i z e d by commitment—just g i v e us your o p i n i o n . P l e a s e remember t h a t your p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s v o l u n t a r y . You are f r e e t o withdraw a t any time. Thank you very much f o r your h e l p . 251 RELATIONSHIP TYPES QUESTIONNAIRE T h i a atudy i a part. o f a l a r g e r study on l n t a r p a r a o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . On the next page, you w i l l f i n d a l i s t o f v s r i o u s k i n d s o f I n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h a t say or say not i n v o l v e l o v e . For each one, ask y o u r s e l f , "To whst e x t e n t i s t h i s a l o v i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p ? " I f you t h i n k t h e r e l a t i o n a h i p i s d e f i n i t e l y not a l o v i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p , g i v e i t a 1 which neana "not a t a l l l o v i n g " . I f you t h i n k a p a r t i c u l a r r e l a t i o n s h i p i s d e f i n i t e l y a l o v i n g r e l a t i o n a h i p , g i v e i t a 9 which means "extremely l o v i n g " . A 5 would mean the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s moderately l o v i n g . Don't worry about why you t h i n k each r e l a t i o n a h i p i s or i s not c h a r a c t e r i z e d by l o v e - - j u s t g i v e us. your o p i n i o n . P l e a s e remember t h a t your p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s v o l u n t a r y . You a r e f r e e t o withdraw a t any time. Thank you very much f o r your h e l p . 252 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 not a t a l l moderately e x t r e s . l y c l o s e f r i e n d s s a l e s p e r s o n and r e g u l a r customer huaband and w i f e p e r s o n a l a n e a i e a parent and young c h i l d i n t e r v i e w e r and j o b a p p l i c a n t b u s i n e s s p a r t n e r s p r o f e a a o r and graduate s t u d e n t opposing n e g o i a t o r s c h i l d r e n i n a f a m i l y ( s i b l i n g s ) nurse and i n v a l i d s o t h e r - i n - l a w and aon-in-law p o l i t i c a l opponents parent and teenager — i b u a i n e s s r i v a l s t e a c h e r and young p u p i l a u p e r v l s o r and employee aecond c o u s i n s guard and p r i s o n e r p s y c h o t h e r a p i s t and p a t i e n t co-workers teammates ( d u r i n g a game) c a s u a l a cquaintances a one-night aexual encounter a marriage o f 25 yeara d i v o r c e d huaband and wi f e an engaged cou p l e an a f f a i r with a married person a s h o r t , mutual f i r s t l o v e an unhappy but s t a b l e marriage v e r b a l and p h y s i c a l f l i r t i n g a t a p a r t y , without f o l l o w - u p a b o y / g i r l f r i e n d l i v i n g t o g e t h e r a f t e r s e v e r a l montha o f d a t i n g a young marriage a f t e r an unwanted pregnancy a permanent but nonsexual r e l a t i o n s h i p between two young r e l i g i o u s people a "going s t e a d y " r e l a t i o n a h i p maintained mainly t o impress peers a steady r e l a t i o n s h i p where each person goes out with member o f the o p p o s i t e sex widowers r e m a r r i e d i n middle age, a f t e r s e v e r a l yeara o f l i v i n g a lone 253 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 not a t a l l a o d s r a t s l y a x t r a a a l y a a a i n l y s s x u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p with an o l d e r and aore e x p e r i e n c e d person « s c h o o l a f f a i r between t e a c h e r and p u p i l b r i e f , f l u c t u a t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s among aeabera of a permanent a o c i a l group a young marriage a f t e r a l o n g , i n v o l v e d c o u r t s h i p a r e l a t i o n s h i p i n which o n l y one of the p a r t n e r s i s d e eply i n v o l v e d « l o n g l a a t i n g , c l o s e p l a t o n i c r e l a t i o n a h i p a s h o r t , mainly s e x u a l a f f a i r between two s t udents an i r r e g u l a r , o c c a s i o n a l d a t i n g r e l a t i o n a h i p f o r mutual e n t e r t a i n m e n t between two young people a h i g h achool d a t i n g r e l a t i o n a h i p t h a t breaks up once the c o u p l e has gone away to c o l l e g e t h e c o n t i n u a t i o n of a once perao n a l r e l a t i o n a h i p by l e t t e r s and phone c a l l s from overseaa a l o n g , i n v o l v e d "going s t e a d y " r e l a t i o n a h i p a t achool " l o v e a t f i r s t s i g h t " , f o l l o w e d by engagement, a f t e r a b r i e f but i n t e n s e r e l a t i o n s h i p the recommencement of an o l d flame, t h a t d i d n ' t work out b e f o r e a ahOrt. emotional h o l i d a y a f f a i r . a middle-aged c h i l d c a r i n g f o r h i s / h e r e l d e r l y parent because a/he f e e l s o b l i g a t e d to * middle-aged c h i l d c a r i n g f o r h i s / h e r e l d e r l y parent because s/he wants to A p p e n d i x J Summary T a b l e o f t h e A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e o n L o v e R a t i n g s f o r 5 3 R e l a t i o n s h i p s SRC. SUM OF MEAN TESTED NO. SOURCE D.F. SQUARES SQUARE F VALUE F PROB AGAINST 1 A 29 6 4 4 . 7 8 2 3 9 0 2 2 . 2 3 3 8 7 1 1 2 . 1 3 8 9 0 . 0 0 0 0 3 2 B 52 6 7 6 2 . 5 5 7 2 3 3 1 3 0 . 0 4 9 1 6 4 7 1 . 0 0 2 2 0 . 0 0 0 0 3 3 ERROR 1508 2 7 6 2 . 0 8 4 2 7 7 1 . 8 3 1 6 2 0 4 TOTAL 1589 1 0 1 6 9 . 4 2 3 8 9 9 Ul Summary T a b l e o f t h e A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e o n C o m m i t m e n t R a t i n g s f o r 5 3 R e l a t i o n s h i p s SRC. NO. SOURCE A B ERROR TOTAL SUM OF MEAN D F SQUARES SQUARE 29 7 6 9 . 1 8 8 0 5 0 2 6 . 5 2 3 7 1 2 52 5 3 7 8 . 9 0 6 9 1 8 1 0 3 . 4 4 0 5 0 6 1508 3 3 7 8 . 1 1 1 9 5 0 2 . 2 4 0 1 2 7 1589 9 5 2 6 . 2 0 6 9 1 8 F VALUE 1 1 . 8 4 0 3 4 6 . 1 7 6 2 F PROB O.OOOO 0 . 0 0 0 0 TESTED AGAINST 3 3 on Summary T a b l e o f t h e A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e f o r A p p l i c a b i l i t y o f C e n t r a l a n d P e r i p h e r a l F e a t u r e s o f L o v e t o R e l a t i o n s h i p s W I T H I N S U B J E C T FACTORS ARE: A - R E L S H I P : 1 HI B - A T T R I B 1 CENTRAL 2 MEOHI 2 P E R I P H 3 MEDLO 4 LO SOURCE S-WITHIN A AS-WITHIN B B S - W I T H I N AB A B S - W I T H I N SUM OF SQUARES 6 2 . 7 3 7 1 4 9 . 6 1 3 1 0 9 . 9 1 2 4.074 2 2 . 3 7 7 18.491 57 .856 DEGREES OF FREEDOM 14. 3. 4 2 . 1 . 14. 3. 4 2 . MEAN SQUARES 4.481 4 9 . 8 7 1 2 . 6 1 7 4.074 1 .598 6. 164 1 .378 F RATIO 19.057 2 . 5 4 9 4.474 P R O B A B I L I T Y 0.001 0. 133 0.O08 Summary T a b l e o f t h e A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e f o r A p p l i c a b i l i t y o f C e n t r a l a n d P e r i p h e r a l F e a t u r e s o f C o m m i t m e n t t o R e l a t i o n s h i p s W I T H I N S U B J E C T FACTORS ARE: A - R E L S H I P : 1 HI B - A T T R I B 1 CENTRAL 2 MEDHI 2 P E R I P H 3 MEDLO 4 LO SOURCE S-WITHIN A AS-WITHIN B BS-WITHIN AB ABS-WITHIN SUM OF SOUARES 2 7 . 3 9 1 3 3 9 . 2 1 6 7 3 . 2 4 6 1.511 17. 125 12.875 5 6 . 9 5 5 DEGREES OF FREEDOM 14. 3. 4 2 . 1 . 14. 3. 4 2 . MEAN SQUARES 1 .957 1 1 3 . 0 7 2 1 .744 1.511 1 . 2 2 3 4.292 1 .356 F RATIO 6 4 . 8 3 7 1 .235 3. 165 P R O B A B I L I T Y 0.001 0 . 2 8 5 0.034 f • 258 Appendix K The f i r s t page consists of the i n s t r u c t i o n s given to subjects i n Study Six. The next s i x pages consist of the three versions of the questionnaire containing unique a t t r i b u t e s of love and commitment (each version i s two pages long). For h a l f the subjects, the question on top of the f i r s t page read, "To what extent w i l l t h i 3 event decrease LOVE?". F i n a l l y , the shared a t t r i b u t e s questionnaire i s included. For h a l f the subjects, the question on top of the f i r s t page read, "To what extent w i l l t h i s event decrease COMMITMENT?" 259 RELATIONSHIP EVENTS QUESTIONNAIRE T h i s i s a s i m p l e study t o f i n d out t h e e f f e c t s o f v a r i o u s e v e n t s on i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Below you w i l l read a a h o r t s t o r y about two people who a r e i n v o l v e d i n a. c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p . You w i l l be aaked t o g i v e your o p i n i o n o f how c e r t a i n eventa w i l l impact upon the r e l a t i o n s h i p . . Keep i n mind t h a t we're i n t e r e s t e d i n what you t h i n k w i l l happen,, not what you t h i n k s h o u l d happen. "Pat and ' c h r i a l o v e each o t h e r and a r e committed t o one another. They began d a t i n g toward the end of t h e i r f i r s t y ear a t U.B.C. and w i l l both be g r a d u a t i n g i n t h e s p r i n g . Pat and C h r i s enjoy doing t h i n g s t o g e t h e r and f r e q u e n t l y go t o movies, s p o r t s events, out f o r d i n n e r , and so on. They a l a o spend many evenings t o g e t h e r j u s t watching TV o r v i s t i n g with f r i e n d s . C e r t a i n t h i n g s c o u l d happen t h a t would have l i t t l e or no impact on t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p . Other t h i n g s c o u l d have a major impact." On t h e next page, you w i l l f i n d a l i s t o f h y p o t h e t i c a l e v e n t s . While most of these events p r o b a b l y would have an impact on t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p , some probably would have a g r e a t e r impact than o t h e r s . For each one, t h i n k about the e x t e n t t o which t h a t event would cauae a decrease i n COMMITMENT i n Pat and C h r i s ' r e l a t i o n a h i p . I f you t h i n k the event would have no impact, on commitment, g i v e i t a 1 which means "not a t a l l l i k e l y " . I f you t h i n k i t ' s extremely l i k e l y t h a t an event would cause a d e c r e a s e i n commitment i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p , g i v e i t a 9 which means "extremely l i k e l y " . A 5 would mean t h a t t h a t t h e event would p r o b a b l y have a moderate impact on commitment. P l e a s e t r y t o use the e n t i r e s c a l e when making your judgments. Keep i n mind t h a t each event has n o t h i n g t o do with the event b e f o r e o r a f t e r i t - - i n o t h e r worda, t r e a t each event s e p a r a t e l y . P l e a s e remember t h a t your p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s v o l u n t a r y . I f you complete t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e I w i l l assume t h a t you have g i v e n your consent to p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h i s study. Thank-you very much f o r your h e l p . 260 each avant, r a t a : "To what extent w i l l t h i a avant dacraaaa C0MM1TMEMT?" 2 3 4 S S 7 S 9 « H a o d e r a t e l y e x t r e s e l y i k e l y l i k e l y l i k e l y P a t ' * r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h C h r i * i * no l o n g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by o b l i g a t i o n . P a t ' * r e l a t i o n a h i p with C h r i * i * no lon g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by happlnea*. P a t ' * r e l a t i o n a h i p with C h r i * 1* no l o n g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by f a i t h f u l n e s s . P a t ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i s i s no lon g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by t o u c h i n g . P a t ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i s i s no l o n g e r c h s r a c t e r i z e d by "being t h e r e " f o r her i n good and bad t i s e a . When asked about h i s r e l a t i o n a h i p with C h r i s , P s t saya he no l o n g e r f e e l s f r e e t o t a l k about a n y t h i n g . When asked about h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i s , Pst s s y s he no l o n g e r g i v e s h i s b e s t e f f o r t . P a t ' s r e l a t i o n a h i p w i t h C h r i s i s no l o n g e r c h s r a c t e r i z e d by l a u g h i n g . When aaked about h i a r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i s , Pat says he no l o n g e r l i v e s up t o h i s word. Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i s i s no l o n g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by sexual appeal Pat no l o n g e r aee h i s r e l a t i o n a h i p with C h r i s as a p r o a i s e . P s t no lon g e r see h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i s as u n c o n d i t i o n a l . Pat no lon g e r see h i s r e l a t i o n a h i p with C h r i s aa a high p r i o r i t y . P at's r e l a t i o n a h i p with C h r i s i s no lon g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a p o s i t i v e o u t l o o k . P s t no l o n g e r sees h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i s as a c o n s c i o u s d e c i s i o n . When asked about h i s r e l a t i o n a h i p with C h r i s , Pat says he no longer e x p e r i e n c e s an i n c r e a a e i n h e a r t r a t e . P a t ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i s i s no longer c h a r a c t e r i z e d by p e r s e r v e r a n c e P a t ' s r e l a t i o n a h i p with C h r i s i s no lon g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by e u p h o r i a . 261 1 2 3 4 3 6 7 8 9 n o t a t a 1 1 soder.tely «xtr...ly lik-ly llk.iv Pat'* relationship with C h r l * 1* no longar characterized by working out probleaa. Pat'a relstiorfship with C h r i * i a no longar characterized by phyaical a t t r a c t i o n . When asked about hia relationahip with Chri*, Pat aay* he no longer f e e l s trapped. Pat's relationship with Chris i s no longer chsracterized by forgiveness. When asked about his relationship with Chris, Pat says he no longer i s r e l i a b l e . When asked about his relationship with Chris. Pat says he no longer •iases her when not together. Pat'a relationahip with C h r i * i s no longer characterized by giving and taking. Pat no longer aeea h i * relationahip with C h r i * aa acary. Pat'a relationahip with C h r i * 1* no longer characterized by aaturity. Pat'a relationahip with C h r i * i * no longer characterized by wonderful feelinga. Pat no longer aeea hia relationahip with Chria aa hard work. Pat'a relationahip with C h r i * i» no longer characterized by eapathy. Pat'a relationahip with C h r i * 1* no longer characterized by working toward coaaon goala. When aaked about h i * relationahip with C h r i * , Pat aays ha no longer does things to Bake her happy. Pat no longer aees his relationship with Chris aa a autual agreement. When aaked about hia relationship with Chris, Pat aaya he no longer focusses hia attention on her. 262 For each t v s n t , r a t a : "To what e x t a n t w i l l t h i a event decrease COHHITKERT? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 not a t a i l moderately e x t r e m e l y l i k e l y l i k e l y l i k e l y Pat'a r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i s i s no lon g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by o b l i g a t i o n . P a t ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i s i s no l o n g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by exci t e m e n t . P a t ' s r e l a t i o n a h i p with C h r i s i s no lon g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by f a i t h f u l n e s s . P a t ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i s i s no l o n g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by p a t i e n c e . P a t ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i s i s no lon g e r c h s r a c t e r i z e d by " b e i n g t h e r e " f o r h i s i n good and bad t i m e s . When asked about her r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i s . Pat says she no l o n g e r e x p e r i e n c e s " b u t t e r f l i e s i n t h e stomach". When asked about her r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h C h r i s , Pat says she no l o n g e r g i v e s her best e f f o r t . P a t ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i s i s no l o n g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by k i n d n e s s . When ssked about her r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i s , Pst s s y s she no l o n g e r l i v e s up t o her word. Pat no lon g e r see her r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i s as mutual. Pat no lon g e r see her r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i s as a promise. P a t ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i s i s no l o n g e r c h s r a c t e r i z e d by a e x u s l p a s s i o n . P s t no longer see her r e l a t i o n a h i p with C h r i s as a hi g h p r i o r i t y . P a t ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i s i s no l o n g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by u n c e r t a i n t y . Pat no lon g e r see her r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i s aa a c o n s c i o u s d e c i s i o n . P s t ' s r e l a t i o n a h i p with C h r i s i s no lon g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by warm f e e l i n g s . P a t ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i s i s no lon g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by p e r s e r v e r a n c i 263 1 2 not. a t a l l l i k e l y P a t 'a r e l a t i o n a h i p with C h r i a l a no l o n g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by protect1veness. P a t ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i s i s no lon g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by working out p r o b l e a a . When aaked about her r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h C h r i s . Pat says she no lon g e r f e e l s r e l a x e d with h i a . When asked about her r e l a t i o n a h i p with C h r i a . Pat aaya ahe no l o n g e r f e e l s t rapped. — , Pat'a r e l a t i o n a h i p with C h r i s i a no l o n g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by dependency. When asked about her r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h C h r i s , Pat says she no l o n g e r i a r e l i a b l e . P a t ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i s i s no l o n g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by openness. P a t ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i s i s no lon g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by g i v i n g and t a k i n g . When asked about her r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i s . Pat says she no l o n g e r a c c e p t s h i a the way he i s . P a t ' a r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i a i a no l o n g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by m a t u r i t y . P a t ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i a i a no longer c h a r a c t e r i z e d by i n t i m a c y . Pat no l o n g e r sees her r e l a t i o n a h i p with C h r i s as hard work. When asked about her r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i s , Pat says she no l o n g e r comforta him. Pa t ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i s i s no l o n g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by working towards common g o a l s . Pat no longer sees her r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i s as a mutual agreement. When asked about her r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i s , Pat says she no l o n g e r focuaaea a t t e n t i o n on him. 5 6 7 8 9 moderately extremely l i k e l y l i k e l y 264 For each event, r a t e : "To what e x t e n t w i l l t h i s everit decrease COMMITHEMT?" 1 2 3 4 3 6 7 8 9 not a t a l l a o d e r . t e l y e x t r e . e l y l i k * l y l i k e l y l i k e l y P at'a r e l a t i o n a h i p with C h r i a i a no l o n g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by o b l i g a t i o n . P a t ' s r e l a t i o n a h i p with C h r i s i s no l o n g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by c l o s e n e s s . P a t ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h C h r i s i s no l o n g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by f a i t h f u l n e s s . When aaked about h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h C h r i s , Pat saya he no l o n g e r gazea a t her. Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i s i s no l o n g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by "being t h e r e " f o r her i n good and bad t i a e s . When asked about h i a r e l a t i o n a h i p with C h r i s , Pat saya he no l o n g e r f e e l s good about h i m s e l f . When aaked about h i s r e l a t i o n a h i p with C h r i s , Pat saya he no l o n g e r g i v e s h i a b e s t e f f o r t . P a t ' s r e l a t i o n a h i p with C h r i a i s no l o n g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a d m i r a t i o n . When asked about h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i s , Pat saya he no l o n g e r l i v e a up t o h i a word. When asked about h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i s . Pat says he no l o n g e r wants the beat f o r her. Pat no l o n g e r see h i s r e l a t i o n a h i p with C h r i s as a promise. When asked about h i s r e l a t i o n a h i p with C h r i s , Pat saya he no lon g e r c o n s i d e r s her t o be very important. Pat no l o n g e r s e e s h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i s as a high p r i o r i t y . P a t ' s r e l a t i o n a h i p with C h r i a i s no l o n g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by f r i e n d s h i p . Pat no l o n g e r see h i a r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i s as a c o n s c i o u s d e c i s i o n . When asked about h i a r e l a t i o n a h i p with C h r i s , Pat says he no l o n g e r wants t o be with her. P a t ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i a i s no lon g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by pe r a e r v e r a n c e 265 1 2 3 4 3 6 7 8 9 no t a t m i l moderately e x t r e m e l y l l K o l y l i k o l y l l k . l v P a t ' * r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h C h r i * i s no l o n g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by energy. P a t ' s r e l a t i o n a h i p w i t h C h r i * 1* no l o n g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by working out problem*. When asked about h i * r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h C h r i s . Pat says he no l o n g e r s e e * o n l y h e r good q u a l i t i e s . When asked about h i a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h C h r i s . Pat says he no l o n g e r f e e l s t r a p p e d . Pat's r e l s t i o n s h i p w i t h C h r i s i s no l o n g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by compassion. When asked sbout h i s r e l a t i o n a h i p w i t h C h r i s , Pat says he no l o n g e r i s r e l i a b l e . Pat'a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h C h r i s i s no l o n g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by u n d e r s t a n d i n g P a t ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h C h r i s i s no l o n g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by g i v i n g and t a k i n g . When asked about h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i s . Pat says he no l o n g e r has a l o t i n common w i t h h e r . Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h C h r i s i s no l o n g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by m a t u r i t y . Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h C h r i s i s no l o n g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by needing each o t h e r . Pat no l o n g e r sees h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i s as hard work. Pat's r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h C h r i s i s no lon g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by i n t e r e s t . P a t ' s r e l a t i o n a h i p w i t h C h r l a l a no l o n g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by working towards coamon g o a l s . Pet ho l o n g e r sees h i s r e l a t i o n a h i p w i t h C h r i s aa a mutual agreement. When asked about h i a r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i s , Pat says he no l o n g e r f o c u a s e s a t t e n t i o n on h e r . For each o f t h e events below, ask y o u r s e l f , "To what extent w i l l t h i s event decrease LOVE?" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 not a t a l l moderately extremely l i k e l y l i k e l y l i k e l y P at'a r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i a i s no l o n g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by honeaty. Pat'a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h C h r i s i s no l o n g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by t r u s t . Pat'a r e l a t i o n a h i p with C h r i a i a no l o n g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by d e v o t i o n . When aaked about h i a r e l a t i o n a h i p with C h r i s , Pat saya he no lo n g e r i a concerned about her w e l l - b e i n g . Pat'a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h C h r i s i s no l o n g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by contentment. Pat'a r e l a t i o n a h i p with C h r i a i s no l o n g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by s h a r i n g . Pat's r e l a t i o n a h i p w i t h C h r i s i a no lon g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by s a c r i f i c e . Pat no l o n g e r see h i a r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i s as a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Pat'a r e l a t i o n a h i p with C h r i a i a no l o n g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by r e s p e c t . Pat'a r e l a t i o n a h i p w i t h C h r i a i s no.longer c h a r a c t e r i z e d by attachment. Pat'a r e l a t i o n a h i p with C h r i a i a no lon g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by support!veness. 267 7 8 9 extremaly l i k e l y _ Pet'a r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i s i s no lo n g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by c a r i n g . _ When asked about h i a r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i s , Pat says he no long e r puts her f i r s t . _ Pat'a r e l a t i o n a h i p with C h r i a i a no lo n g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by l i k i n g . Pat'a r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i s i s no lo n g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by l o y a l t y . _ Pat'a r e l a t i o n a h i p w i t h C h r i a i a no lon g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by s e c u r i t y . When aaked about h i a r e l a t i o n a h i p with C h r i s , Pat aaya ha no long e r t h l n k a about her a l l the time. . Pat'a r e l a t i o n a h i p with C h r i a i a no lon g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a f f e c t i o n . Pat'a r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i s i s no lo n g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by h e l p f u l n e s s . Pat'a r e l a t i o n s h i p with C h r i a i a no lo n g e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by g i v i n g . Pat no l o n g e r sees h i a r e l a t i o n a h i p with C h r i a aa l o n g l a a t i n g . 1 2 not a t a l l l i k e l y 4 5 6 moderately l i k e l y your age female male A p p e n d i x L Summary T a b l e o f t h e A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e o n I m p a c t o f V i o l a t i o n s o f U n i q u e F e a t u r e s o f L o v e a n d C o m m i t m e n t BETWEEN S U B J E C T FACTORS ARE: A - R A T I N G 1 I m p a c t L , 2 I m p a c t C W I T H I N S U B J E C T FACTORS ARE: B - CONCEPT : 1 LOVE , 2 COMMIT C - A T T R I B 1 CENTRAL , 2 P E R I P H SOURCE S-WITHIN B AB B S - W I T H I N C AC CS-WITHIN BC ABC BCS-WITHIN SUM OF SQUARES 0.0 6 6 5 . 6 2 1 5 .801 0.308 6 5 . 5 5 1 3 2 1 . 3 7 2 0. 154 1 2 3 . 9 9 2 19.666 0. 132 7 9 . 8 0 5 DEGREES OF FREEDOM 1 178 178 178 178 MEAN SQUARES 0.0 3.739 5.801 O. 308 0. 3 6 8 321 .372 0. 154 0.697 19.666 0. 132 0.448 F RATIO 0.0 15.752 0 . 8 3 5 4 6 1 . 3 5 3 0.221 4 3 . 8 6 3 0.294 P R O B A B I L I T Y 0 . 9 9 9 0 . 0 0 1 0 . 3 6 2 0 . 0 0 1 0 . 6 3 9 0 . 0 0 1 0.58B Summary T a b l e o f t h e A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e o n I m p a c t o f V i o l a t i o n s o f U n i q u e a n d S h a r e d F e a t u r e s o f L o v e a n d C o m m i t m e n t BETWEEN S U B J E C T FACTORS ARE: A - R A T I N G 1 I m p a c t L , 2 I m p a c t C W I T H I N S U B J E C T FACTORS ARE: B - CONCEPT : 1 LOVE . 2 COMMIT C - A T T R I B 1 CENTRAL , 2 P E R I P H SOURCE S-WITHIN B AB B S - W I T H I N C AC C S - W I T H I N BC ABC BCS-WITHIN SUM OF SQUARES 0.057 8 0 7 . 1 4 1 1 .400 0.371 7 4 . 9 3 4 3 9 6 . 3 3 2 0 . 8 0 0 1 5 5 . 3 2 0 2 2 . 5 3 7 0.057 8 3 . 5 9 4 DEGREES OF FREEDOM 1 232 232 232 232 MEAN SQUARES 0.057 3.479 1 .400 0.371 0 . 3 2 3 3 9 6 . 3 3 2 0 . 8 0 0 0 . 6 6 9 2 2 . 5 3 7 0.057 0 . 3 6 0 F RATIO 0 . 0 1 6 4 . 3 3 3 1 . 150 5 9 1 . 9 9 6 1 . 195 6 2 . 5 4 9 0. 159 P R O B A B I L I T Y 0.898 0.038 0.285 0.001 0.276 0.001 0.691 to On ID 

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.831.1-0097046/manifest

Comment

Related Items