The triangle theory of love illustrates how two people fall in love. Intimacy, ardour, and commitment are the three different measures used by social Psychologist Sternberg to define different kinds of love. Consider that a one-way relationship is less probable to last as long as a relationship with two or more people. Three aspects can be used to describe different phases and forms of love. Each component shifts in importance over time as an adult relationship matures.
The word “like” is employed in a more severe context in this situation. Rather than absolute passion or long-term commitment, Sternberg describes true friendship as an “intimate liking” in which two people feel a sense of belonging, warmth, and closeness. Often, “love at first sight” results from an infatuated love. However, enchanted love might go without warning if it lacks intimacy and commitment. Even the most important relationships can become empty love, where the devotion remains, but the romantic love and passion have faded away. When arranged marriages are the norm, many partnerships begin with a feigned enthusiasm for one another. When two people fall in love, they share intense arousal that connects them emotionally and physically. It is common in marriages where the passion has faded, but there is still a profound attachment and devotion.
Togetherness is generally a deep connection you build with someone you share your interests with, but with no physical or sexual desire. It is bigger and more powerful than friendship because of the adaptive commitment system. Companionate love includes the kind of love that develops between close friends or family members and the type that grows in any asexual but cordial relationship. An example of a heated courtship and marriage that is primarily driven by passion but lacks the calming influence of intimacy is a case of ridiculous love. In its purest form, consuming honey is the ideal kind of love that many people strive for but which appears to be achieved by only a tiny percentage of the population. Maintaining love may be more complicated than attaining it, according to Sternberg. It is important to put love into action, according to him. As he warns, “even the best of love can die” if it is not expressed (1987, p.341). It’s possible that a committed relationship won’t last forever. Companionate love develops when the passion of the first love fades away.
Sternberg’s three dimensions of love are likely to change throughout a relationship. For all of us, a perfect relationship consists of a strong dosage of all components of consummate love. However, spending time alone will not lead to an increase in closeness, desire, or commitment. This knowledge might help couples avoid mistakes in their relationship, concentrate on growth areas, or realize when it’s time to end the relationship.
Sex in love partnerships is idealized as a private act between two equal individuals who care about each other, yet, regrettably, sexual double norms exist. We looked at evolutionary theory early in this chapter as a possible explanation for the differences between men and women. The social exchange hypothesis can be used in romantic relationships to explain the disparity between how women and men see sex and romantic relationships. The social exchange theory examines the economic costs of conversations between two parties. Assuming both parties contribute and get value from each other, the hypothesis is based on. According to this hypothesis, interactions will only continue if both sides feel they have gained more from the exchange than they have lost, i.e., if there is a net gain for both parties. (Baumeister and Vohs 5)
The social exchange theory examines the costs and benefits of exchanges between two parties. Assuming both parties contribute and get value from each other, the hypothesis is based on. This hypothesis states that if both sides believe they are getting more out of the transaction than what they are giving up, the exchange will continue. The concept of rewards and costs is central to many social transaction theories. A benefit exchanged for a cost is referred to as a reward, whereas a loss or penalty is a cost. Understanding sexuality in a relationship is more effortless when using the social exchange paradigm, which emphasizes what each partner provides and takes from the other. One can examine why people pick each other for a dating relationship, who has more significant influence over the sexual behaviours, and if one or both affiliates might seek sexual behaviour outside of the partnership by using this method.
We’ve all had a friend or family member who was a martyr. She’s another who suffers the most and refuses to take the help that might alleviate her difficulties. If you’re reading this, there’s a martyr in your life right now, sacrificing herself. She’s the one who means making sure you understand she’s giving up—for you and everyone else but herself—whether you’re a friend, parent, husband, coworker, or roommate. Those who suffer from martyr syndrome exhibit their agony in public. The martyr is determined to be the one who misses out on happiness and the things that others take for granted.
There’s always a reason why you can’t aid the martyr… Because it’s easier for him to do it himself; he’s already started; he doesn’t mind, etc., if you do it poorly. Now or in the future, it’s not conceivable for you to relieve him of his load. When you’re in a partnership with a martyr, it’s possible to let the martyr do all the work. Because she’s so sure it’s everything you want, and because there is no other option, she seems to be convinced of that. I’ll sit and read the paper if you’re going to do everything. The slob you already perceive me to be will appear. It doesn’t usually work this way because it doesn’t diminish the martyr’s hatred and makes you play a part you don’t need to play (the sluggish slug).
Those with a martyr complex would provide “assistance” that doesn’t come from a place of love, and this is a telltale sign that you’re dealing with someone who has a martyr complex. You don’t feel cared for or kept safe by their “doing for you.” There is an incensed scent to the martyr’s “help,” which implies that the martyr does not like to help but is forced to because of their sentenced life of suffering. Instead of eliciting thankfulness or warmth, their “assistance” often causes you to feel guilty and even more guilty since you don’t feel grateful. Having the “assistance” of a martyr can feel like you’re being punished for something you didn’t commit.
Being in the company of a martyr can be perplexing, frustrating, and downright depressing at times. Because of this, you spend so much time and effort figuring out what’s wrong with you so that you don’t feel more grateful for their kindness. At almost the same time, you’re left wondering why you’re not more helpful than the martyr. The problem is that you’re not insane, and you’re not disrespectful or lazy. Those conflicting feelings you’re having signify that your instincts are on the right track. There is a lack of gratitude in your heart because you aren’t receiving it. Your sense of entrapment stems from your participation in a martyrdom narrative. You don’t feel warm and kind unless you’re being punished and blamed.
Ira Reiss’s Wheel Theory of Love first proposed courtship, relationship growth, and mate selection as an ever-evolving continuum. The four interrelated phases of the circular and based on a comprehensive can be seen as the sprockets of a roller: rapport, self-disclosure, mutual dependence, and the satisfaction of personal needs. In a loving relationship, cultural role concepts influence each of the four functional processes, influencing how people perceive, express, and expect one another to act.
An endeavour at a scientific examination of the concept of love is made possible by Limerence, which gives “a special splitting up of the lexical domains of love”. It is thought that Limerence is an intellectual and motivational state of becoming emotionally engaged to or even preoccupied with another person, and it is often experienced involuntarily and marked by a strong desire for retaliation of one’s sentiments near-obsessive kind of passionate love. In the words of Tennov, “desire for sex is a fundamental component of limerence… the limerent can be a possible sex partner.”
Two sorts of love exist: “limerence,” which Tennov deems “loving attachment,” and the link between a child’s parent and a child’s mother or father, among other things. For example, she explains that one type could transform into another: “Loyalty to a spouse can replace the lack of limerence in some people. ‘We were madly in love before we got married, and we’re still madly in love with one another today.’ “. In the same way that “the attachment of the bind is quite similar to the psychological reciprocation sought for in Tennov’s limerence, and each is tied to sexuality,” ethologists distinguish “between the fusion and spare set functions of sexual activity.”
In Nicky Hayes’s words, Limerence is a “sort of captivated, all-consuming devotion” that goes unanswered. When Dante wrote La Vita Nuova and the Divine Comedy, he used Beatrice, who he met twice in his life, as a source of inspiration. “More or less infatuated by that individual and spends most of their time fantasizing about them” is the definition of Limerence, the excellent craving for the other person. Limerence can only last if the conditions for the attraction remain unsatisfied; hence, sporadic, intermittent reinforcement is necessary to support the underlying sensations of attraction. Hayes notes that “it is the impossible to obtain nature of the objective which tends to make the sensation so powerful”. It is not infrequent for those to stay in a state of having particular over anyone untouchable for months. The infatuation of Werther for Charlotte in Goethe’s masterpiece The Sorrows of Young Werther serves as a notable literary example of Limerence.
References
Amani, D. (2022). Circumventing customers’ switching behaviour in the telecommunication industry in Tanzania: Insight from Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love. Cogent Social Sciences, 8(1), 2042078.
Anderson, J. W. (2016). S Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love. Encyclopedia of family studies, 1-3.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874-900.
Cropanzano, R., Anthony, E. L., Daniels, S. R., & Hall, A. V. (2017). Social exchange theory: A critical review with theoretical remedies. Academy of management annals, 11(1), 479-516.
Diessner, R., Frost, N., & Smith, T. (2004). Describing the neoclassical psyche embedded in Sternberg’s triangular theory of love. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 32(7), 683-690.
Lawler, E. J., & Thye, S. R. (1999). Bringing emotions into social exchange theory. Annual review of sociology, 25(1), 217-244.
Mitchell, M. S., Cropanzano, R. S., & Quisenberry, D. M. (2012). Social exchange theory, exchange resources, and interpersonal relationships: A modest resolution of theoretical difficulties. In Handbook of social resource theory (pp. 99-118). Springer, New York, NY.
Whitley Jr, B. E. (1993). Reliability and aspects of the construct validity of Sternberg’s Triangular Love Scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10(3), 475-480.
write