Relationship psychologists have long grappled with the question of how romantic love and sexual desire emerge and evolve over the course of intimate relationships (Aron & Aron, 1998). Love can give meaning to a person’s life, but often it can be a mystery. In the world we live in today, almost everything has been reduced to a science of processes and mechanisms.  Can we possibly find love and an understanding of our relationships through social science? While there is a consensus that male sexual interest and desire are associated with gonadal hormones, especially testosterone (Berscheid & Regan, 1999) is this all that influences love and passion? Today we will be investigating Fisher’s 3 stages of love study and the chemicals produced, that influence the cognitive process that follow.

Fisher (2006) states that the first stage of love is Lust. It is driven by the sex hormones testosterone and oestrogen present in both men and women. In almost all studies to date, testosterone has been associated with sexual desire or activity, but not sexual arousal (Berscheid & Regan, 2005). At this stage ,chemicals such as androgens, estrogens, progesterone and prolactin play a crucial role in human attraction (Regan, 2008) this is usually stimulated by people who are perceived to be physically attractive.  Sexual desire works by motivating proximity seeking, and contact which allows commitment to grow between the couple (Hazan & Zeifman, 1999).

When men are sexually attracted to women, they experience a spike in testosterone levels (Berscheid & Regan, 1999). Attraction is the second stage of love and is primarily influenced by the production of oestrogen and testosterone. However, a number of neurotransmitters are also responsible for the emotions that follow during the stage of attraction. Scientists have given monoamines the most recognition for maintaining strong relationships and general arousal (Regan, 2008).  These main neurotransmitters are adrenaline, dopamine and serotonin.

Our body’s natural response to stress is an increment in adrenalin and cortisol levels in our blood stream (Fisher, 2006). The explosion of neurochemicals in our body stimulates the production of adrenaline (by norepinephrine) which triggers the sense of excitement that causes us to feel dizzy, our heart beat faster and makes our palms sweaty.  The dopamine produced affects our pleasure and motivation sensors.  When we fall in love, the production of dopamine is heavily secreted throughout our body causing a sensation akin to a substance-induced high (Cook, 1981). This may have the same effect as illicit drugs such as cocaine. As dopamine rewards our pleasure senses, this encourages people to pursue their counterpart (Fisher, 2006).  As the addiction to the chemical grows stronger, our attraction becomes greater.  According to (Marazziti, Akiskal, Rossi & Cassano, 1999), couples in newly formed relationships share similar levels of serotonin to patients with low levels of Obsessive compulsive disorder. Unlike the production of dopamine and adrenaline, the production of serotonin is decreased when we are in love (Regan, 2008).
The final stage of love is attachment. The bond developed at this stage of love maintains the relationship in order for the couple to reproduce and raise their children. The chemicals responsible for preserving this relationship are Oxytocin and Vasopressin.  Experiments were conducted on animals to signify the importance of these chemical in human relationships.  In studies made by (Insel, Winslow, Wang & Young, 1998) suggest that oxytocin and vasopressin have a role to playing complex social behaviours, including parental care, sex behaviour, and aggression.

Oxytocin is a neuron that deepens feelings of attachment and makes couples feel much closer to one another. It also helps to cement the strong bond of trust between mom and baby when it is released during childbirth. In similar studies made by (Kéri & Benedek, 2009), oxytocin was proven to improve biological motion and encourage maternity in animals.

Vasopressin is another essential hormone in the long-term commitment of love.  When exposed to the hormone, scientists found that rats would indulge in far more sex than is strictly necessary for the purposes of reproduction.  But when Vasopressin, was suppressed the bond with their partner deteriorated immediately as they lost their devotion and failed to protect their partner from new suitors (Bujis, 1978).

Could it be that love is simply the effects of chemicals released through the course of a relationship?  Although scientific evidence suggests that chemicals do have a strong influence on human relationships can it possibly encompass the complexities of human behaviour?  Unlike animals, the lives of people are more complex as we engage in commerce and other faculties of human social interaction which poses as obstacles for love.

References

Aron, A. Aron, E.N. (1998). Love and the expansion of self: understanding attraction and satisfaction. Washington: Hemisphere Pub. Corp.

Berscheid, E. Regan, P.C. (1999). Lust: what we know about human sexual .Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, c1999.

Berscheid, E. Regan, P. C. (2005).The psychology of interpersonal relationships .Upper Saddle River, New Jersey : Pearson Education, 2005.
Bujis, R.M. ( 1978). Intra- and extrahypothalamic vasopressin and oxytocin pathways in the rat. Cell and Tissue Research, Heidelberg :Springer Berlin

Cook, M. (1981). The bases of human sexual attraction. Sydney: Academic Press.

Diamond, L. M. (2003). What does sexual orientation orient? A biobehavioral model distinguishing romantic love and sexual desire. Psychological Review, 110, 173–192.

Fisher, H. (2006).The New Psychology of Love, 2nd Edition. RJ Sternberg and K Weis (Eds.) New Haven: Yale University Press

Hazan, C. Zeifman, D. (1999). Pair bonds as attachments: Evaluating the evidence. In J. Cassidy & P.R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of Attachment Theory and Research. New York: The Guilford Press.

Insel,T. Winslow, J.Wang, Z. Young, L.J. (1998). Oxytocin, vasopressin, and the neuroendocrine basis of pair bond formation . Department of Psychiatry and  Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center, Atlanta: Emory University.

Kéri,S. Benedek, G.  (2009). Oxytocin enhances the perception of biological motion in humans.Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience. 9(3) 237-242.

Marazziti, D. Akiskal, H. Rossi, A. Cassano, G. (1999). Alteration of the platelet serotonin transporter in romantic love.  Psychological medicine,  239, 741-745.

Regan. P. C (2008). Mating game: a primer on love, sex, and marriage. 2nd Edition. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Sobol, B. (2007). Love And Lust. Cosmopolitan. 242(3) 138. Retrieved from Proquest.

Andre, S. Berry, O. Fischer, A. Stepleton, H. Younger, J.  (Producers). (2nd August 2009). The science of sex appeal: Mating for life. Podcast retrieved from:

http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/science-of-sex-appeal-mating-for-life.html on September 7th 2009

Testosterone VS. Dopamine

http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/science-of-sex-appeal-testosterone-vs-dopamine.html

Dr Donetella Marazziti on love.

Many of the  researchers I have studied concur with the notion that  that attractive faces carry important information about mate quality (Johnston, 2006; Jie & Chang, 2009; Ahron et al, 2001; Olson & Marshuetz, 2005).  Evolutionary psychologist Rhodes (2006) uncovered that facial attractiveness is generally believed to indicate the genetic fitness and reproductive capacities of encountered individuals. The perception that attributes of  good health and appropriate mating partners can be evidenced by the activation of our brain’s reward system (Winston, O’Doherty, Kilner, Perrett, & Dolan, 2007). As these perceptions are driven mainly by the process of mate selection, it comes by no surprise that although males and females both rate beautiful male and female faces as attractive, their reward circuitry and related brain regions are more strongly activated by faces of the opposite gender (Aharon et al.,2001).

In adulthood, the positive biases toward attractive individuals manifest themselves in more than just areas of  mate selection and parenthood to include multiple areas of  contemporary social life (Langlois et al., 2000). Attractive people are perceived as being more competent, charismatic, or better at leading. As they are assumed to possess better social skills probably because they are not encumbered by rejection, they tend to receive better salaries and greater mating success (Rhodes, Simmons, & Peters, 2005). However, the mating successes of adults  are dependent on the varying significance of attraction to men and women. As men do not reach a period in which their reproductive organs begin to deteriorate, they are still able to procreate despite not possessing the traits of pinnacle health. However, they make up for this with a wealth of resources. When selecting mates, Li, Bailey, Kenrick, & Linsenmeier( 2002) found that men place greater importance on attractiveness than do women. And in contrast women favour status and resources more so than men (Li et al,  2002). Again, this trend seems to reflect upon natural survival instincts  of providing a female mate with avenues in which her offspring would get ahead in society or reflect an abundance of opportunities (Regan, 2008). The only fallacy I find with the research I have conducted is that the statistics does not consider women who “marry down”. It also does not take into account women who do not wish to have children.

fMRI Scans of experiments conducted by  Cloutier, Heatherton, Whalen  & Kelly  that depict  Winston et al, 2007) reward system.

Facial attractiveness and the assumed positive merits are  believed to come to mind spontaneously upon encountering attractive individuals (Olson & Marshuetz, 2005). Perhaps this is nature’s way of  guiding people towards a safer passage to survival?  The information that we extract from facial attractiveness  has a profound influence on how we construe newly encountered individuals (Jackson, Hunter, & Hodge, 1995).  As previously mentioned in week 8’s post, this is essential to the development of the bonding period in relationships.  It seems that even infants are not immune to the appeal of beauty. Langlois et  al (1991) discovered that when presented with a pair of stimuli composed of an attractive and an unattractive face, infants will spend more time looking at the most attractive of the two (Langlois, Ritter, Roggman, & Vaughn, 1991). I believe this has to do with a child’s perception of his or her “nurturer” as choosing an appropriate candidate ( not too old and not too sick) would best help an infant survive.  The documentary “the human face” claims that as we age our habitual expressions become etched on our faces and  this gives out signals as to what type of a person we are. Perhaps this calls for a revision of the saying “Don’t judge a book by its cover”?.

In essence, the traits of beauty and attractiveness are indicators of good health essential to mateship and mate selection.  Would a person jump straight into a relationship with someone who shows symptoms of the final stages of a disease?  It is hard to quantify why we fall in love and with whom. However, traits of health are essential to the procurement of healthy genes and is probably the reason why people are so fascinated with beauty.

References

Aharon, I., Etcoff, N., Ariely, D., Chabris, C. F., O’Connor, E.,Breiter, H. C. (2001). Beautiful faces have variable reward value: fMRI and behavioural evidence. Neuron,32, 537–551

Cloutier, J. Heatherton, T. F. Whalen, P. J.  Kelley, W. M. (2008).  Are Attractive People Rewarding? Sex Differences in the Neural Substrates of Facial Attractiveness. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(6), 941–951

Erskine, J. Stewart, D. (Producers). (26^th August 2001). The human Face. Burlington: BBC.

Jackson, L. A., Hunter, J. E., & Hodge, C. N. (1995). Physical attractiveness and intellectual competence: A meta-analytic review. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 108–122.

Johnston, V. S. (2006). Mate choice decisions: The role of facial beauty. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 9-13.

Jie, S. Chang, H.L.(2009). Can beauty be ignored? Effects of facial attractiveness on covert attention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16 (2), 276-281

Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A.,Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological

Bulletin, 126, 390–423.

Langlois, J. H., Ritter, J. M., Roggman, L. A., & Vaughn, L. S.(1991). Facial diversity and infant preferences for attractive faces. Developmental Psychology, 27, 79–84.

Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeier, J. A. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 82, 947–955.

Olson, I. R., & Marshuetz, C. (2005). Facial attractiveness is appraised in a glance. Emotion, 5, 498–502.

Regan. P. C (2008). Mating game: a primer on love, sex, and marriage. 2^nd Edition. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Rhodes, G., Simmons, L. W., & Peters, M. (2005). Attractiveness and sexual behaviour: Does attractiveness enhance mating success? Evolution and Human Behaviour, 26, 186–201.

Rhodes, G., & Zebrowitz, L. A. (2002). Facial attractiveness: Evolutionary, cognitive, and social perspectives. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.

Senior, C., Lau, A., & Butler, M. J. R. (2007). The effects of the menstrual cycle on social decision making. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 63, 186–191.

Winston, J. S., O’Doherty, J., Kilner, J. M., Perrett, D. I., & Dolan, R. J. (2007). Brain systems for assessing facial attractiveness. Neuropsychologia, 45, 195–206.

The Human Face Part 1

The Human Face Part2

Note : You may stop stop watching at 2.33 minutes as the documentry loses relavence.

Erskine, J. Stewart, D. (Producers). (26^th August 2001). The human Face. Burlington: BBC.

Often underestimated, our sense of smell gives us the ability to discern between many different odours. This suggests that specific c receptors exist in the sensory cells that may have an effect on the way we feel (Kohl et al, 2001).Olfactory signals are able to induce emotional reactions whether or not a chemical stimulus is consciously perceived (Kohl, Atzmueller, Fink & Grammer, 2001). Just like animals, our sense of olfactory has considerable input about the social environment.  Olfaction plays a very important role in human reproductive biology and because human reproductive biology affects human behaviour (Kohl et al, 2001).

This process is said to be influenced by chemicals called “Pheromones”. Pheromones have been classified as molecules released by individuals and responsible for the elicitation of specific behavioural expressions in members of the same species ( Tirindelli, Dibattista, Pifferi & Menini, 2009). Pheromones play an important role in inter-individual communication, and are known to do so in primates (Kohl et al, 2001). In most mammals, the heightened sense of smell is attributed to a larger number of receptors in a structure in the nose called the vomeronasal organ (VNO). This organ has receptors for pheromones that can trigger hormone changes, readying an animal for sexual activity. This is not to be confused with sent, pheromone detection is distinct from smell. Pheromones that are secreted by our bodies are odourless, and can be detected by the VNO although the does not detect odour (Miller, 2006).

As humans lack a VNO, it was once an assumption of psychologists that people do not respond to pheromones. However, in 1998, psychologist Martha McClintock discovered that women living together tend to synchronize their menstrual cycles. This was because when women were exposed to the body odours of other women, it triggered similar changes in their menstrual cycle (Stern & McClintock, 2006).

In a parallel study, the influence of male odours on the menstrual cycle was tested by applying auxiliary secretions to the upper lips of female test subjects. It was found that  women who were not sexually active had irregular menstrual cycles at the beginning of the experiment began to develop a longer length cycle. This strongly suggested that male pheromones have a regulatory effect on the menstrual cycle as well (Kohl et al, 2001). Human pheromones appear to alter both physiology and behaviour in other humans (Kohl et al, 2001). But more importantly, female pheromones can also alter pulsatility in men. These studies show that human pheromones elicit change in hormones (Kohl et al, 2001).

In humans, pheromone production is primarily linked to the apocrine glands of the skin. These  secretions are most present in moist areas of the body, like the axillae, mouth, feet, and genitals (Kohl et al, 2001).In women, concentrations of aliphatic acids that are secreted from the vaginal barrel and that have been referred to as “Copulins,”  or “Copulance” according to Dr  Oberzaucher [from the video]. The amount of copulins released by women varies accordingly with phases of the menstrual. The odour of the copulins and its behavioural effects also appear to vary with the menstrual cycle (Kohl et al, 2001).

In sufficient quantity, pheromones are consciously detected as natural human body door. Human apocrine glands develop in the embryo, but only become functional with the onset of puberty. This is natures also one of nature’s way of preparing our bodies for reproduction. The link between apocrine gland function and puberty reflects that such a function is closely related to levels of sex hormones that increase with the onset of puberty (Kohl et al, 2001).

These experiments prove that humans have a system beyond smell for communicating chemically about sexual functions (Stern & McClintock, 1998). While I may delve further into the research,  I do not wish to complicate this entry with scientific research that only serves to complicate our understanding of pheromones as there are too many types to consider. McClintock’s experiments instigated a line of research that has begun to uncover biological foundations of sexual orientation. Brain scans show that responses to sniffing male and female hormones are associated more strongly with sexual orientation than with biological sex (Miller, 2006). The influence of human pheromones on social behaviour may pale by comparison to the influence that pheromones may have on human reproduction. (Kohl et al, 2001) as it does not have the capacity to develop a defence for abnormal sexual behaviours such as homosexuality, incest or paedophilia.  Although human pheromones are active with the onset of puberty, they will never be more than a small part of human sexual behaviour (Miller,2006). Despite the various directions our visual aids and olfactory stimulus might guide us there must be other factors that narrow the scope of mate selection.

References

Stern, K. McClintock, M.K. (1998).Regulation of ovulation by human pheromones. Nature, 392:177–9.

Miller, M.C. (2006). Human pheromones: pheromones and human sexual behaviour, Harvard Mental Health Letter, 1057(5022),1.

Kohl, J.V. Atzmueller, M. Fink, B. Grammer, K. (2001). Human Pheromones: Integrating Neuroendocrinology and Ethology. Neuroendocrinology Letters 2001; 22:309–321

Tirindelli, R. Dibattista, M. Pifferi. S. Menini, A. (2009) From pheromones to behaviour.(Report) Source: Physiological 89(3),921-956.

Copulance

http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/science-of-sex-appeal-female-copulance.html

Acording to studies made by  (Singh,2001) and  (Thornhill et al,  2003),  these sub groups can be divided into groups that produce odours that  indicate fertility and those that do not.  In experiments conducted by Thornhill  et al, 2003, it was found that men displayed a significant sent preference for women who are at high risk of conception in their menstrual cycle. A predictable outcome of such experiments. What was interesting about this experiment was that women  were found to be attracted to the odours of men that demonstrate traits of male body symmetry, this was especially true when women were ovulating (Thornhill et al,  2003).Who knew that body symmetry had a scent of its own. The odours we produce are altered accordingly to our bodily changes. For example, Individuals under stress or disease emit body odours quite different from their normal odours ( Filsinger & Fabes, 1985) this allows people to distinguish between healthy and appropriate mating partners. So you might find that you may be smellier when you are sick.

Our odour prints allow individuals to identify subgroups within the population, which suggests odour prints also have a role in social recognition (Singh, 2001). A reason for this was suggested by ( Leon, 1983) ,neural circuits in the olfactory system may develop a template to which odours can be neurally matched, allowing a unique responsiveness to meaningful odours. Over the years, this hypothesis was expanded upon by ( Filsinger & Fabes, 1985) who tested this theory on babies and the recognition of odours in motherhood. They found that newborn infants are more likely to orient to odours donated from the breast of their own mother rather than another  which suggests that the detection of differences in human body odours begins early in life (Porter & Winberg, 1999; Filsinger & Fabes, 1985).
Odour identification occurs between mothers and their children and are related to the recognition of genetic relatives. ( Filsinger & Fabes, 1985). As this helps one to identify offspring, the MHC’s role in kin recognition adds to the communication of mother-offspring attachment process. This form of communication is so strong that (Porter & Moore, 1981) found that siblings and mothers were able to correctly identify odours of clothes worn by their siblings and off- spring versus those of strangers. In addition, parents were able to discriminate between odours produced by two of their own children( Filsinger & Fabes, 1985). From this perspective, olfaction appears to facilitate mother-infant interaction to avoid the parenting of the wrong offspring ( Filsinger & Fabes, 1985).
On the flipside, maternal behaviour may be influenced hormonal changes that occur during pregnancy may produce a unique physiological state in the mother which makes her highly receptive to her young (Hofer, 1981). This happens by the altering of olfactory thresholds, thus allowing the free expression of maternal responses to occur. This capacity  is found to be latent in non maternal adults, particularly males. I guess this is how nature responds to couples who do not wish to have children, by producing odours that encourage motherhood as babies too emit odours of their own. It was found in the same research that interaction and experience with newborns in close quarters facilitate these behaviours in these adults through the similar emission of smells ( Filsinger & Fabes, 1985). The exposure to specific maternal odours could imprint into the nervous system a special responsiveness to such odours experienced early in life. ( Filsinger & Fabes, 1985) resurrecting a sense of an affection.
The MHC and  odours produced by our bodies are key elements to not just mate selection  and reproduction, they also provide a type of “aroma-therapy” for parenting adults. It encourages certain maternal behaviours and helps identify our children.  It is comforting to know that even our sense of smell has a role to play in identifying people and selecting appropriate partners as a natural defence.

References

Filsinger, E.E. Fabes, R.A. (1985) Odour Communication, Pheromones, and Human Families, Journal of Marriage and Family, 47(2),349-359.
Hofer, M. A. 1981 The Roots of Human Behavior. San Fran- cisco:W. H. Freeman.
Jacob, S., McClintock, M.K., Delano, B. Oberg, C. (2002). Paternally inherited HLA alleles are associated with women’s choice of male odour. Nature Genetics, 30, 175–179.

Leon, M. 1983 “Chemical communication in mother-young interaction.” In J. Vandenbergh (Ed.), Pheromones and Reproduction in Mammals. New York: Academic Press.
Lewis, R. 1984 “Practice catches theory in kin recognition. Science 223:1049-1051.
Martins, Y. Preti, G. Crabtree, C.R. Runyan, T. Vainius, A. A. Wysocki, C.J. (2005) Preference for Human Body Odours Is Influenced by Gender and Sexual Orientation. American Psychological Society. 16(9), 694-701.

Porter, R. H. and Moore, J. D. 1981 “Human kin recognition by olfactory cues.” Physiology & Behaviour 27:493-495.
Porter, R.H. Winberg, J. (1999). Unique salience of maternal breast odours for newborn infants. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 23, 439–449.

Rasmussen, L.E. Lee, T.D. Roelofs, W.L. Zhang, A. Daves, G.D.Jr. (1996). Insect pheromone in elephants. Nature, 379, 684.

Singh, P.B. (2001). Chemosensation and genetic individuality. Reproduction, 121, 529–539.

Thornhill,R.  Gangestad, S.W.Miller,R.  Scheyd,G. McCollough,  J.K. Franklin, M. (2003). Major Histocompatibility complex genes, symmetry and body sent attractiveness in men and women, Behavioural Ecology, 14 (5), 668-678.

Attraction (Human Instinct)

Physical attractiveness plays an influential role both in the formation and maintenance of romantic relationships (Swami & Furnham, 2008b). Individuals tend to evaluate themselves more positively than they evaluate their intimates and their intimates more positively than strangers or the average person (Van Lange, 1991). In understanding the maintenance of relationships, research has shown that perceptions’ of partner physical attractiveness are associated with relationship indicators such as commitment, intimacy, satisfaction, and passion (McNulty, Neff, & Karney, 2008). In an experiment conducted by Swami et al, participants were asked to provide ratings of overall physical attractiveness and the attractiveness of various body parts for themselves and their opposite- sex romantic partners (Swami et al., 2007). Their results showed that both women and men rated their partners as being significantly more attractive than themselves. This experiment was similarly replicated by Barelds-Dijkstra & Barelds in 2008, who measured the love-is-blind bias as the difference between perceptions of one’s partner and the partner’s self-ratings. This general consensus has little to do with demographic factors such as sex (Murstein, 1972) but rather more to do with relationship variables such as satisfaction and love (Swami et al., 2007).

The love is blind bias holds to the premise that both women and men should be expected to reap some beneficial function from these perceived traits. In recent research, this benefit was suggested to be a buffer for individuals against negative appraisals while enhancing self-beliefs (Barelds-Dijkstra & Barelds, 2008). Positive illusions about a partner’s physical attractiveness may initially serve to focus one’s perceptions of a new partner based on their positive qualities; this enables individuals to navigate early romance (Swami & Furnham, 2008a). In the long term however, the love-is-blind bias may mellow out and redirect ones attention to qualities that enhance commitment in the relationship (Taylor & Brown, 1988. This in turn, results in improved relationship satisfaction and self-esteem. Moreover, positive illusions concerning nonphysical partner traits appear to have a positive effect on relationship satisfaction both in both the short- (Miller, Niehuis, & Huston, 2006) and long-term (Murray & Holmes, 1997).

As previously mentioned, the positive illusions about one’s partner are associated with greater relationship satisfaction; this may be observed as fewer instances of conflict in dating and marital relationships (Murray & Holmes, 1997). These positive illusions may serve to enhance an individual’s sense of security in the relationship and stabilize their long-term pair bonds (Murray, 1999). Even when these perceptions are shaken by the confrontation of their partners’ faults, such as an attraction to someone else(Simpson, Ickes, & Blackstone, 1995), individuals tend to deny the importance of those faults (Murray & Holmes, 1993).Perception’s influencing a partner’s self-enhancement is less pronounced in close relationships than in more distant relationships (Kenny,1994).A possible reason for this is that it might work as  a means of reducing partner derogation and associated negative effects on the self and the relationship (Swami et al, 2009).

Although I would love to elaborate on this concept of illusions and perceptions of love, sadly the research is limited due to the exploratory nature of this study. Although the hypothesised premises of the research have been supported by a number of researchers, these findings cannot account for individual variables that may influence perception and the prediction of relationship outcomes. These inaccuracies may stem from discrepancies to dishonest feedback to personal opinions subjective to the research participants. In essence, the summary of today’s blog post is that  people harbour false but positive impressions of their intimate partners as this helps them to promote positive relationships as well as smooth over situations that contribute to the maintenance of their marriage or courtship.

References

Barelds-Dijkstra, P. Barelds, D.P.H. (2008). Positive illusions about one’s partner’s physical attractiveness. Body Image, 5, 99–108.

Kenny, D.A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. New York: Guilford.

Martz, J.M. Verette, J.  Arriaga, X.B. Slovik, L.F., Cox, C.L. Rusbult, C.E. (1998). Positive illusion in close relationships. Personal Relationships, 5, 159–181.

McNulty, J.K. Neff, L.A. Karney, B.R. (2008). Beyond initial attraction: Physical attractiveness in newlywed marriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 135–143.

Miller, P.J.E. Niehuis, S. Huston, T.L. (2006). Positive illusions in marital relationships: A 13-year longitudinal study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1579–1594.

Murray, S.L. (1999). The quest for conviction: Motivated cognition in romantic relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 10, 23–34.

Murray, S.L. Holmes, J.G. (1993). Seeing virtues in faults: Negativity and the transformation on interpersonal narratives in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 707–722.

Murray, S.L.  Holmes, J.G. (1997). A leap of faith? Positive illusions in romantic relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 586–604.

Murstein, B.I. (1972). Physical attractiveness and marital choice Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22, 8–12.

Simpson, J.A. Ickes,W. Blackstone, T. (1995). When the head protects the heart: Emphatic accuracy in dating relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 629–641.

Swami, V. Furnham, A. (2008a). Is love really so blind? The Psychologist, 21, 108–111.

Swami, V. Furnham, A. (2008b). The psychology of physical attraction. London: Routledge.

Swami, V. Furnham, A.  Georgiades, C. Pang, L. (2007). Evaluating self and partner physical attractiveness. Body Image, 4, 97–101.

Swami, V. Stieger, S. Haubner, T. Voracek, M. Furnham, A. (2009). Evaluating the Physical
Attractiveness of Oneself and One’s Romantic Partner Individual and Relationship Correlates
of the Love-Is-Blind Bias. Journal of Individual Differences 30(1), 35–43

Taylor, S.E., & Brown, J.D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193–210.

Van Lange, P.A.M. (1991). Being better but not smarter than others: The Muhammad Ali effect at work in interpersonal situations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 689–693.

This is an interesting experiment depicting the learning curve of choosing mates.

Just like Mitchell’s hypothesis, many theorists attest to the notion that love eventually declines. Most models of love imply that over time romantic love inevitably declines and, at best, evolves into some kind of friendship or companionate love. And this is reflected in the amount of research conducted by Murry, Holmes & Griffin, and Neff & Karney and many others. In general, individuals tend to hold a greater number of positive beliefs and fewer negative views about their relationships (Van Lange & Rusbult, 1995). For example, surveys have reported that up to 80% of spouses describe their marriages in very positive terms (Lee, Seccombe, & Sheehan, 1991) while underestimating their chances of divorce in comparison with other couples (Fowers, Lyons, Montel, & Shaked, 2001).

One of the reasons for this sentiment is because individuals in dating and married relationships have projected images of what they considered to be their ideal partner onto their current partners, thus, imbuing them with all kinds of idealized qualities (McNulty, O’Mara, &Karney, 2008). Eventually, this enhanced perspective of the relationship well-being, in comparison to other “less successful” couples will produce significant benefits to the relationship (Rusbult, Van Lange, Wildschut, Yovetich, & Verette, 2000). The only challenge to maintaining this assessment is to have accurate and realistic perception of these qualities. As familiarity with a partner develops sometimes these perceived qualities begin to fade and the negative qualities begin to suffice resulting in dissatisfaction in relationships.

Couples in mature relationships need to have illusions of their relationships to as it provides them a sense of security and a variety of benefits such as pride, security and satisfaction. Research conducted by (Murray, Holmes, and Griffin, in 1996) analyzed the evaluations that married partners made of one another and found that positive illusions acted as a buffer to negative events in a relationship. Thinking of one’s partner in a positive light helps couples achieve a sense of social satisfaction so that they can still enjoy one’s company even  when the ‘going gets tough’. Over the course of their  research , ( Murry et al, 1996) discovered that  the projection of these perceived positive qualities  began to manifest in their partners’ idealized images of them and partners also shared these perceived idealized qualities in themselves.  It also became evident that positive thinking might also encourage for the improvement and actual attainment of these qualities.
In another research by (Neff & Karney, 2002), the researchers concluded in a study of newlywed couples that on a ‘global’ level it is beneficial to idealize a partner. For instance, positive perceptions of qualities such as “a good nature” or a “good heart” is a general enough statement to and redeem a person from their demerits enough so to minimize the risk of disappointment from a partner’s shortcomings.  On a more specific level, it is more beneficial to have more accurate perceptions of one’s partner (Neff & Karney, 2002). These two levels of partner perception respectively as ‘global adoration’ and ‘specific accuracy’, and found them to be associated with greater relationship satisfaction and stability than ‘blind’ adoration (Neff & Karney, 2002).

(Neff & Karney’s ,2002) model seems to strike the balance between reality and perception: on the one hand having a very positive and possibly idealized, general view of a partner; while on the other hand having quite a realistic assessment of a partners qualities.  In the previous post  I have titled it “love-is-blind”,  perhaps this calls for a revision as  (Neff & Karney, 2002) as well as ( Murry et al, 1996) seem to attest to the conclusion that love is not necessarily blind, in fact, love more perceptive rather than blind. This is because the individuals seem to create the reality that they wish for, as the relationship progresses. And on occasion this perception may profuse into reality.

References

Acevedo, B. P.  Aron, A. (2009). Does a Long-Term Relationship Kill Romantic Love? Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 59–65

Berscheid, E. Hatfield [Walster], E. H. (l969). Interpersonal attraction. New York: Addison Wesley.

Dion, K. L. Dion, K. K. (1991). Psychological individualism and romantic love. Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, 6, 17–33

Fowers, B.J. Lyons, E.M. Montel, K.H. Shaked, N. (2001). Positive illusions about marriage among married and single individuals.  Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 95–109.

Hatfield, E. Rapson, R. L. (1993). Historical and cross-cultural perspectives on passionate love and sexual desire. Annual Review of Sex Research, 4, 67–98.

Lee, G.R.  Seccombe, L. Sheehan, C.L. (1991). Marital status and personal happiness: An analysis of trend data. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 839–844.

Martz, J.M. Verette, J.  Arriaga, X.B. Slovik, L.F., Cox, C.L. Rusbult, C.E. (1998). Positive illusion in close relationships. Personal Relationships, 5, 159–181.

McNulty, J.K. O’Mara, E.M. Karney, B.R. (2008). Benevolent cognitions as a strategy of relationship maintenance: “Don’t sweat the small stuff” . . . But it is not all small stuff. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 631–646.

Meyers, S. A. Berscheid, E. (1997). The language of love: The difference a preposition makes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 347–362.
Brown, J.D. (1986). Evaluations of self and others: Self-enhancement biases in social judgments. Social Cognition, 4, 353–376.

Miller, P.J.E. Niehuis, S. Huston, T.L. (2006). Positive illusions in marital relationships: A 13-year longitudinal study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1579–1594.

Mitchell, S. A. (2002). Can love last? New York: Norton.
Murray, S.L. Holmes, J.G. (1993). Seeing virtues in faults: Negativity and the transformation on interpersonal narratives in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 707–722.

Murray, S.L.  Holmes, J.G. (1997). A leap of faith? Positive illusions in romantic relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 586–604.

Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996). The benefits of positive illusions: Idealization and the construction of satisfaction in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 79 – 98.

Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2002). Judgments of a relationship partner: Specific accuracy but global enhancement. Journal of Personality, 6, 1079-1112.

Rusbult, C.E. van Lange, P.A.M. Wildschut, T. Yovetich, N.A. Verette, J. (2000). Perceived superiority in close relationships: Why it exists and persists. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 79, 521–545.

Simpson, J. A. B. Campbell, B. Berscheid, E. (1986). The association between romantic love and marriage: Kephart. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 363–372

Simpson, J.A. Ickes,W. Blackstone, T. (1995). When the head protects the heart: Emphatic accuracy in dating relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 629–641.

Taylor, S.E., & Brown, J.D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193–210.

Van Lange, P.A.M., & Rusbult, C.E. (1995). My relationship is better than – and not as bad as – yours is: The perception of superiority in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 32–44.