A Triangular Theory of Love

This article presents a triangular theory of love. According to the theory, love has three components:(a) intimacy, which encompasses the feelings of closeness, connectedness, and bondedness one ex-periences in loving relationships; (b) passion, which encompasses the drives that lead to romance,physical attraction, and sexual consummation; and (c) decision/commitment, which encompasses, inthe short term, the decision that one loves another, and in the long term, the commitment to maintain that love. The amount of love one experiences depends on the absolute strength of these three components, and the kind of love one experiences depends on their strengths relative to each other. The three components interact with each other and with the actions that they produce and that produce them so as to form a number of different kinds of loving experiences. The triangular theory of love subsumes certain other theories and can account for a number of empirical findings in the research literature, as well as for a number of experiences with which many are familiar firsthand. It is proposed that the triangular theory provides a rather comprehensive basis for understanding many aspects of the love that underlies close relationships. What does it mean "to love" someone? Does it always mean the same thing, and if not, in what ways do loves differ from each other? Why do certain loves seem to last, whereas others disappear almost as quickly as they are formed? This article seeks to answer these and other questions through a triangular theory of love. This tripartite theory deals both with the nature of love and with loves in various kinds of relationships. The presentation of the theory will be divided into three main parts. In the first part, the main tenets of the theory will be explained and discussed, and the theory will be compared with other theories of love. In the second part, the implications of the theory for close relationships and satisfaction in them will be described. In the third part, the theory will be shown to account for many of the empirical phenomena that have been observed with regard to love.The Triangle of Love Three Components #1 The triangular theory of love holds that love can be understood in terms of three components that together can be viewed as forming the vertices of a triangle. These three components are intimacy (the top vertex of the triangle), passion (the left-hand vertex of the triangle), and decision/commitment (the right-hand vertex of the triangle). (The assignment of components to vertices is arbitrary.) Each of these three terms can be used in many different ways, so it is important at the outset to clarify their meanings in the context of the present theory. I am grateful to Michael Barnes, Susan Grajek, and Sandra Wrightfor their collaborations in my empirical research on love, and to Ellen Berscheid, Keith Davis, Elaine Hatfield, Martin Hoffman, and George Levinger for their excellent comments on an earlier version of this article.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Robert J. Sternberg, Department of Psychology, Yale University, Box 11A Yale Station, New Haven, Connecticut 06520. The intimacy component refers to feelings of closeness, connectedness, and bondedness in loving relationships. It thus includes within its purview those feelings that give rise, essentially,to the experience of warmth in a loving relationship. The passion component refers to the drives that lead to ro-mance, physical attraction, sexual consummation, and related phenomena in loving relationships. The passion component thus includes within its purview those sources of motivational and other forms of arousal that lead to the experience of passion in a loving relationship. The decision/commitment component refers to, in the short term, the decision that one loves someone else, and in the long term, the commitment to maintain that love. The decision/com-mitment component thus includes within its purview the cognitive elements that are involved in decision making about theexistence of and potential long-term commitment to a lovingrelationship.In general, the intimacy component might be viewed as largely,but not exclusively, deriving from emotional investment in therelationship; the passion component as deriving largely, althoughnot exclusively, from motivational involvement in the relationship; and the decision/commitment component as deriving largely, although not exclusively, from cognitive decision in and commitment to the relationship. From one point of view, the intimacy component might be viewed as a "warm" one, the passion component as a "hot" one, and the decision/commitment component as a "cold" one.The experience of love can be partitioned in a number of ways, and so it is important to note at the outset that the present partitioning into intimacy, passion, and decision/commitment is not the only one possible, nor is it even valid for all possible purposes. Nevertheless, the argument will be made that the pro My use of the term components in this article differs from my use of the term in my theorizing about intelligence (e.g., Sternberg, 1985), where the term is used to refer to a mental process. posed partitioning is particularly useful for understanding the elements of love, and how they function in close relationships. Although love, like other psychological phenomena, can be partitioned into various kinds of components, it is important not to lose sight of the whole in the analysis of its parts. Love is a complex whole that appears to derive in part from genetically transmitted instincts and drives but probably in larger part from socially learned role modeling that, through observation, comes to be denned as love. To a large extent, then, love is prototypically organized (Rosch, 1978), such that certain feelings, drives, thoughts, and behaviors appear as more highly characteristic of love as it is socially denned, whereas others appear as less characteristic.2 Indeed, one way to study love would be through the examination of people's conceptions or implicit theories of love (Barnes & Sternberg, 1986, are currently involved in such an investigation). Such an investigation capitalizes on principles ofdescriptive psychology in order to provide a framework for love-related phenomena (Davis & Roberts, 1985; Ossorio, 1985). Atheory of love, therefore, can help one understand the range andcomposition of the phenomenon of love but should not result in the whole's being lost in its parts.The similarities and differences among the three components of love may be better understood by examining their respective properties, some of which are summarized in Table 1. Properties of the Components of Love The three components of love differ with respect to a number of their properties. For example, the emotional and other in-volvement of the intimacy component and the cognitive commitment of the decision/commitment component seem to berelatively stable in close relationships, whereas the motivational

and other arousal of the passion component tends to be relatively

unstable and to come and go on a somewhat unpredictable basis.

One has some degree of conscious control over the feelings of

the intimacy component that one experiences (if one is aware of

them), a high degree of control over the commitment of the

decision/commitment component that one invests in the rela-

tionship (again, assuming awareness), but very little control over

the amount of motivational and other arousal of the passion

component one experiences as a result of being with or even

looking at another person. One is usually quite aware and con-

scious of the passion component, but one's awareness of the in-

timacy and decision/commitment components can be highly

variable. Sometimes one experiences warm feelings of intimacy

without being aware of them or without being able to label them.

Similarly, one is often not certain of how committed one is to a

relationship until people or events intervene to challenge that

commitment.

The importance of each of the three components of love differs,

on the average, as a function of whether a loving relationship is

short-term or long-term. In short-term involvements, and espe-

cially romantic ones, the passion component tends to play a large

part. The intimacy component may play only a moderate part,

and the decision/commitment component may play hardly any

part at all. In contrast, the intimacy component and the decision/

commitment component typically play relatively large parts in

a long-term close relationship. Indeed, it is difficult to sustain

Table 1

Properties of Triangle Vertices

Component

Property

Stability

Conscious controllability

Experiential salience

Typical importance in

short-term

relationships

Typical importance in

long-term

relationships

Commonality across

loving relationships

Psychophysiological

involvement

Susceptibility to

conscious awareness

Intimacy

Moderately

high

Moderate

Variable

Moderate

High

High

Moderate

Moderately

low

Passion

Low

Low

High

High

Moderate

Low

High

High

Decision/

commitment

Moderately

high

High

Variable

Low

High

Moderate

Low

Moderately

high

such a relationship without at least some degree of involvement

and commitment. In contrast, the passion component typically

plays only a moderate part, and its role may decline somewhat

over time.

The three components of love also differ in their commonality

across loving relationships. The intimacy component appears to

be at the core of many loving relationships (Sternberg & Grajek,

1984), whether that relationship is toward a parent, a sibling, a

lover, or a close friend. The passion component tends to be limited

to just certain kinds of loving relationships, especially romantic

ones, whereas the decision/commitment component can be highly

variable across the different kinds of loving relationships. For

example, commitment tends to be very high in one's love for

one's children, but relatively low in one's love for those friends

that come and go throughout the span of one's lifetime.

The three components also differ in the amount of psycho-

physiological involvement they offer. The passion component is

highly dependent on psychophysiological involvement, whereas

the decision/commitment component appears to involve only a

modest amount of psychophysiological response. The intimacy

component involves an intermediate amount of psychophysio-

logical involvement.

In sum, the three components of love have somewhat different

properties, which tend to highlight some of the ways in which

they function in the experiences of love as they occur in various

kinds of close relationships.

Composition of the Triangle

The intimacy component. In the context of the triangular

theory, the intimacy component refers to those feelings in a re-

lationship that promote closeness, bondedness, and connected-

ness. Our research indicates that it includes, among other things,

feelings of (a) desire to promote the welfare of the loved one, (b)

!

I am grateful to Keith Davis for making this observation.

TRIANGULAR THEORY OF LOVE 121

experienced happiness with the loved one, (c) high regard for

the loved one, (d) being able to count on the loved one in times

of need, (e) mutual understanding with the loved one, (f) sharing

of one's self and one's possessions with the loved one, (g) receipt

of emotional support from the loved one, (h) giving of emotional

support to the loved one, (i) intimate communication with the

loved one, and (j) valuing the loved one in one's life (Sternberg

& Grajek, 1984). These feelings form only a subset of the possible

ones that can be experienced in the intimacy component of love,

and moreover, it is not necessary to experience all of these feelings

in order to experience love. To the contrary, our research indicates

that one experiences the intimacy component of love when one

samples a sufficient number of these feelings, with the number

that is sufficient probably differing from one person to another.

The feelings are usually not experienced independently; to the

contrary, they may be experienced as one overall feeling. Nev-

ertheless, they appear to be at least partially decomposable, as

in the listing here.

Sternberg and Grajek (1984) actually tested three alternative

theories of the nature of love, focusing upon its intimacy com-

ponent. They referred to the three theories as Spearmanian,

Thomsonian, and Thurstonian. The nature of the three theories

is illustrated in Figure 1. All three theories are based on structural

models of intelligence.

The Spearmanian theory is based on Spearman's (1927) theory

of general intelligence (g). In terms of a structural model of love,

one might conceptualize love partly in terms of a single g, which

would be an undifferentiated "glob" of highly positive feelings

that is essentially nondecomposable. To experience love would

be to experience this glob of highly positive feelings.

The Thomsonian model is based on Thomson's (1939) theory

of the "bonds" of intelligence. In terms of a structural model of

love, one might conceptualize love partly in terms of feelings

that, when sampled together, yield the composite experience that

we label love. On this view, though, the composite is not an un-

differentiated unity; rather, it can be decomposed into a large

number of underlying bonds that tend to co-occur in certain

close relationships and that in combination result in the global

experience that we view as love.

The Thurstonian theory is based on Thurstone's (1938) theory

of primary factors. In terms of a structural model of love, one

would emerge with a theory viewing love partly in terms of a

small, consistent set of feelings that have approximately equal

importance and salience in the overall experience we describe

as love. Love is not one main thing, whether decomposable

(Thomsonian model) or not (Spearmanian model). Rather, it is

a set of primary structures that are best understood separately

rather than as an integrated whole. All contribute simultaneously

to the experience of love. According to this notion, global ex-

periences such as love can be decomposed into multiple over-

lapping (correlated) factors, and one could essentially combine

factor scores to obtain an overall index of the strength of the

love.

Sternberg and Grajek (1984) used factor- and cluster-analytic

methods to distinguish among these three theories. These meth-

ods were applied to the Rubin Loving and Liking Scales as well

as to the Scale of Interpersonal Involvement used by Levinger,

Rands, and Talaber (1977). The data were analyzed not only for

' Spearmanian " Model

" Thomsonian" Model

O love

Oj~ affects,

cognitions,

motivations

"Thurstonian"Model

love

affects,

cognitions,

motivations

Figure 1. Three alternative models of love.

the measures of loving and liking for one's lover, but also for

measures of loving and liking for one's mother, father, sibling

closest in age, and best friend of the same sex. Subjects in the

study were 35 men and 50 women in southern Connecticut,

ranging in age from 18 to 70 years, with a mean of 32 years.

Factor analysis of the data of these subjects for each of the

close relationships supported a Thomsonian model: A general

factor emerged even after varimax rotation of the principal-axis

solution (which tends to obscure rather than to highlight a general

factor), but the general factor proved to be decomposable through

hierarchical cluster analysis. In other words, the factor analysis

supported either the Spearmanian model or the Thomsonian

model, both of which are consistent with a general factor, but

not the Thurstonian model, which is not consistent with a general

factor (at least at the first order of analysis). The decomposability

of the general factor supported the Thomsonian model but not

the Spearmanian one, in that Spearman's model does not allow

for the decomposability of the general factor.

In the Sternberg-Grajek (1984) study, the Thomsonian model

was viewed as applying to the three components of love considered

jointly. However, a subsequent examination of the contents of

the Rubin and Levinger et al. scales revealed that they focus

primarily on the intimacy component of close relationships rather

than on passion or decision/commitment. Hence, the analysis

of these scales is seen as applying most directly to the intimacy

component.

An interesting and, to some extent, surprising finding of the

Sternberg-Grajek (1984) study was that the structure of intimacy

in love does not appear to differ consequentially from one lovin relationship to another. In other words, the general factor and

ensuing clusters that were obtained for each relationship were

about the same. This finding suggests that the intimacy com-

ponent of love forms a common core in loving relationships. In

other words, whereas the passion and decision/commitment

components appear to be unique to loving relationships with

certain classes of individuals, the intimacy component does not

appear to be limited to just certain loving relationships.

Consider, for example, loves for a mother, a father, a sibling,

a best friend of the same sex, and a lover. According to the present

point of view, the intimacy component forms a common core

in each of these loving relationships. However, the passion and

decision/commitment components are experienced more selec-

tively. For example, the passion component probably plays a

major part in love for a lover, but only a minor part, if any at

all, in love for a parent, especially a same-sex parent. Similarly,

the decision/commitment component is likely to play an im-

portant role in certain loving relationships, especially those with

members of one's nuclear family (e.g., the mother, father, and

siblings, if any). However, commitment over the long term need

not play an important role, or any role at all, in love for a lover.

Indeed, many romantic loves are short term and are never in-

tended to be anything else. (Note that the term commitment is

used here and elsewhere in this article to refer to long-term in-

vestment in a loving relationship, not to refer to the degree of

responsibility one feels for another in a loving relationship.)

Although the structure of the intimacy component of love

may be roughly the same from one loving relationship to another,

the amounts of love one feels toward various individuals may

differ considerably. For example, in the Sternberg-Grajek (1984)

study, we found that men tend both to love and to like their lover

more than their mother, father, sibling closest in age, or best

friend. Women, on the other hand, were found to love their lover

and their best friend of the same sex about equally, but to like

their best friend of the same sex somewhat more than they like

their lover. For the women, as for the men, loving and liking of

the lover and best friend exceeded that of the mother, father, and

sibling closest in age. For both men and women, the sibling closest

in age was loved and liked least of all from among this group of

individuals. Our pattern of results is generally comparable to

that of Swensen (1972), who used a different set of measures in

order to obtain his results. Thus, both of these sets of results

suggest that there are consistent differences in typical amounts

of love across different close relationships.

Sternberg and Grajek (1984) also found that the predictability

of the amount of love one feels for one individual from the

amount of love one feels for other individuals differs across re-

lationships. In particular, they found that the amount of love

one experiences for one member of one's nuclear family (mother,

father, sibling closest in age) tends to be predictable from the

amount of love one feels for another member of that nuclear

family. However, amounts of love experienced toward members

of the nuclear family do not predict amounts of love one expe-

riences for individuals outside the nuclear family. In other words,

whereas the amount of love one experiences for one's mother,

father, and sibling closest in age are mutually predictive, these

amounts of love are not predictive of the amount of love one

feels for one's lover or one's best friend of the same sex. Nor is

the amount of love one experiences for one's lover predictable

from the amount of love one experiences for one's best friend

of the same sex. In other words, amounts of love tend to be

predictable within but not outside of the nuclear family.

As noted above, the Sternberg-Grajek (1984) study focused

on the intimacy component of love. However, there is more to

love than just the intimacy component. Consider in turn the

passion and decision/commitment components.

The passion component. The passion component of love

comprises those motivational and other sources of arousal that

lead to the experience of passion. It includes what Hatfield and

Walster (1981) refer to as "a state of intense longing for union

with the other" (p. 9). In a loving relationship, sexual needs may

well predominate in this experience. However, other needs, such

as those for self-esteem, succorance, nurturance, affiliation,

dominance, submission, and self-actualization, may also con-

tribute to the experiencing of passion. The strengths of these

various needs will almost certainly vary across persons, situations,

and kinds of loving relationships. For example, sexual fulfillment

is likely to be a strong need in romantic relationships but not in

filial ones. The manifestations of these needs are through psy-

chological arousal and physiological arousal, although these two

kinds of arousal are not easily separable. Indeed, psychological

arousal will almost inevitably interact with physiological arousal,

with arousal of one kind leading to arousal of the other kind.

The passion component of love will almost certainly be highly

and reciprocally interactive with intimacy. One will feel, for ex-

ample, intimacy in a relationship in large part as a function of

the extent to which the relationship meets one's needs for passion.

Conversely, passion may be aroused by intimacy. In some close

relationships with members of the opposite sex, for example, the

passion component develops almost immediately, and it is only

after a while that the intimacy component develops. The passion

component is what may draw the individual to the relationship

in the first place, but the intimacy component helps sustain

closeness in the relationship. In other close relationships, however,

the passion component, especially as it applies to physical at-

traction, develops only after the intimacy one. Two close friends

of the opposite sex may find themselves developing a physical

attraction for each other that did not develop immediately, and

indeed did not develop until they achieved a certain level of

intimacy with each other.

The intimacy and passion components need not always covary

positively. In certain kinds of relationships, for example, those

with prostitutes, individuals may seek out another who maximizes

fulfillment of needs for passion while purposefully minimizing

intimacy. Negative covariation between the intimacy and passion

components can be a function of person as well as of situation:

Some people find that the attainment of emotional closeness and

intimacy actually interferes with their attainment of sexual ful-

fillment. The point to be made, quite simply, is that although

the form of interaction between the intimacy and passion com-

ponents will vary across persons and situations, the two com-

ponents of love will almost certainly interact in close relation-

ships, in one way or another.

The decision/commitment component. The decision/com-

mitment component of love consists of two aspects, a short-term

one and a long-term one. The short-term one is the decision that

one loves a certain other. The long-term aspect is the commitment

to maintain that love. These two aspects of the decision/com