Love Expressions
Anette Karin Åbom
Master Thesis in Social Psychology Department of Psychology
University of Oslo
June 2020
Title: Self-initiated Autonomy- and Intimacy-promoting Love Expressions.
Author: Anette Åbom
Title of Thesis: Self-initiated Autonomy- and Intimacy-promoting Love Expressions.
What makes some romantic relationships thrive, being a source of positive emotions, a safe haven and secure base for both partners? Could studying spontaneous expressions of love, their type and frequency, help answer this question? Previous research has provided insights on mutual support in close relationships. However, these have predominantly been limited to responses to emerging needs of the partner without including spontaneous self-initiated love expressions. The purpose of the current thesis was 1) to develop a valid and reliable self-report measure of self-initiated
autonomy- and intimacy-promoting love expressions within romantic relationships, and 2) to assess the unique contributions of these enacted behaviors in the prediction of relationship satisfaction, attachment orientation, and the experience of kama muta (a construct deriving its name from Sanskrit “being moved by love”). One quantitative pilot study was conducted (n =86) for an initial investigation of the relevant variables. This study revealed which love expressions can give rise to feelings of kama muta, and provided preliminary evidence for the expected relations among
variables. Subsequently, a qualitative pilot study was conducted (n = 9) to examine how individuals expressed their love for their partner in daily life. From the interviews, 79 intimacy-promoting and 51 autonomy-promoting love expressions were derived, which comprised the initial item pool of Self-initiated Autonomy- and Intimacy-promoting Love Expression Scale (SAILS) in the Main Study (n = 296). The results showed that self-initiated intimacy-promoting (but not autonomy- promoting) behaviors as well as the partner-initiated behaviors were uniquely associated with relationship satisfaction. Avoidantly attached individuals expressed intimacy less frequently than securely attached individuals. For anxious attachment, no consistent pattern emerged. Thus, helping avoidantly attached persons to show intimacy to their partner through consistent, concrete behavior may help them become more securely attached, which would profit not only them but also their partner. Finally, the frequency of experiencing kama muta was clearly related to both types of love expressions, but only intimacy-promoting love expressions mediate the effect of kama muta on increased relationship satisfaction. In sum, the evidence collected in all three studies supports the idea that spontaneous love expressions help create strong relationships between romantic partners, giving rise to positive emotional experiences and strengthening secure attachment. The statistical power of the main study is sufficient enough, and the central effects are large enough to warrant further investigation into these issues. First, replications with new samples in new cultural contexts will be necessary to test the generalizability of the results. The results can already inform the work
dealing with negative emotions and conflict. Furthermore, it will be important to investigate causal directions and ways of inducing behavior change and overcoming old habits. Such interventions may be particularly helpful for couples experiencing a passive deterioration of their relationship with low levels of conflict but also low levels of intimacy and enjoyment of the relationship.
Keywords: love expressions, romantic relationships, autonomy, intimacy, attachment orientation, kama muta, relationship satisfaction
received during the challenging but also exciting process of writing a Master Thesis. Not only did all the literature reading and practicing of research procedures ensure a steep learning curve for me, but your comments provided essential insights that increased the rate of progress. I am deeply grateful for this. Simultaneously, I would like to thank Alan P. Fiske for several valuable
discussions and comments that both gave me ideas and inspiration, but also made me reconsider my initial plans for the Master Thesis. Likewise, a few comments from Thomas W. Schubert was weighting heavily with my choices for the Master Thesis.
I would also like to thank my boss, Annette Eriksson, for making it possible for me to study, not only by giving me permission to be on a leave from work during longer periods of time, but also by being extraordinarily flexible with my working hours. Similarly, I would like to thank my
colleagues at Kraftvärk, for showing care and understanding in stressful times.
Finally, I would like to thank my husband Andreas Åbom for giving me a vast amount of both autonomy- and intimacy promoting love expressions during the sometimes enervating process of working on a Master Thesis. I know your comments about celebrating you when I am done, has been ironic, but in fact, I think your patience, countless encouragements, and perseverance with periods of junk-food and occasional lonely nights, should to be celebrated.
The present research was supported by funds provided to Beate Seibt by the Department of Psychology, University of Oslo.
Self-initiated Autonomy- and Intimacy-promoting Love Expressions.……….…1
Conceptualizing Love.………..…3
Conceptualizing Autonomy………..……4
Self-supporting Behavior……….………6
Expressions of Needs and Wants………..……6
Exploration of Self-concept………..…7
Self-expanding Activities……….…7
Conceptualizing Intimacy.………8
Mutual Disclosure of Personal Information.………9
Positive Communication of Affection.……….………9
Physical Proximity, Touch, and Sex.………..……10
Kama Muta in Romantic Relationship………..…11
Attachment Orientation in Romantic Relationships………..12
Insecure Individuals and Given Love Expressions………13
Insecure Individuals and Received Love Expressions………..14
Receiving versus Giving Love Expressions………..…15
Overview of the Current Studies………15
Pilot Study 1………..…16
Method………16
Results and Discussion….………..…18
Pilot Study 2………..…22
Method………23
Results and Discussion…….………..24
Main Study………29
Method………29
Results and Discussion………..…….33
General Discussion………41
Limitations and Directions for Future Research………..…..45
Conclusion……….……46
References………..……49
Appendix………..…..61
Self-initiated Autonomy- and Intimacy-promoting Love Expressions
Love is an exceptionally popular topic. More than 75 000 quotes on love can be found on some search engines, and the list of artistic creations describing or illustrating the subject of love, is seemingly endless. Despite an overwhelming interest in the subject among people in general, and billions of people entering a romantic relationship with the hope and intention of staying together, the statistics reveal that we still don’t know much about how we actually make our romantic
relationships last. The divorce rates among individuals over age 35 have increased substantially the last few decades, recently being at an all-time high (Kennedy & Ruggles, 2014). Adding to this, cohabiting unions appear to be even more likely to dissolve than marriages (Guzzo, 2014),
explaining the observed increases in serial cohabitation across different population groups (Cohen
& Manning, 2010). Disruption of a romantic relationship is considered one of the two most stressful life events a person can experience (Holmes & Rahe, 1967), increasing the risk for several negative outcomes, ranging from heightened distress levels (Johnson & Wu, 2002) to Major Depressive Disorder (Lucas, 2005) and an all-cause mortality (Sbarra & Nietert, 2009). Moreover, living in an unhappy and strained relationship is predicting higher incidences of mental disorders (Whisman &
Uebelacker, 2006) and negative effects on physical health (Henry et al., 2015). The far reaching impact of romantic relationships, both for the individuals living with a partner but also for the host of parties involved, highlight the pressing need for research to map out the labyrinthine patterns of correlating factors influencing and predicting relationship satisfaction.
Historically, the literature on interpersonal dynamics within romantic relationships used to focus almost exclusively on negative processes, a tendency that made some marital therapists claim that love had become a forgotten variable (Roberts, 1992). Subsequent research that highlighted how such negative processes could be counteracted, represented a shift in attention from causal antecedents and consequences of negative processes toward solutions of those. Responsiveness, support-provision, and caregiving in times of distress were by such placed under scientific scrutiny and contributed to greater knowledge of behavioral responses that predicted less relationship distress. Slowly, also the parallel interpersonal processes during exploratory situations, in which individuals all the same have a need of a partner’s availability, encouragement, and support (Feeney, 2004), were given some but sparse attention. However, research examining self-initiated love expressions that are not deriving from a relationship partner’s signaled momentary needs has been virtually nonexistent. Accordingly, there does not exist a scale measuring the behavioral manifestations of such self-initiated love expressions, a void in the research literature that this current thesis seeks to fill.
When trying to understand the processes toward increasing relationship satisfaction, it is of
paramount importance to investigate how a sense of security in the romantic relationship is created, sustained, or improved. Indeed, a vast amount of research has found an association between the ability to develop and maintain healthy romantic relationships and attachment orientation; a general behavioral system that monitors threats to the experience of feeling secure in a relationship
(Bowlby, 1982) based on a significant other’s availability, attentiveness, and responsiveness (Hazan
& Shaver, 1994). One meta analysis looked at 118 independent samples of 21 602 individuals and concluded that attachment insecurity was clearly detrimental to relationship quality both in terms of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral processes (Li & Chan, 2012). A recurring and still highly relevant question is whether such attachment insecurity can be changed. Most of the scarce research on adult attachment orientation change have investigated situations that typically activate feelings of insecurity, and a few have suggested specific ways to down-regulate insecure reactions when secondary attachment strategies have been triggered, or to mitigate them through partner-buffering strategies (Overall & Simpson, 2015; Farrell, Simpson, Overall, & Shallcross, 2016). The process of enhancing attachment security, however, has received hardly any attention. Some research has examined how individuals can thrive in their romantic relationships (Feeney & Collins, 2015), and suggested some specific partner actions to promote attachment security (Park, Impett, MacDonald
& Lemay, 2019, Arriaga & Kumashiro, 2019), but the exact mechanisms underlying the security enhancement need to be further investigated and current existing theories extended.
A fertile ground for investigating security enhancement is to have a closer look at autonomy and intimacy, two fundamental building blocks of healthy relationships. Unsatisfactory levels of intimacy in romantic relationships has been identified as the most frequent reason for divorce (Waring, 1988), and the experience of autonomy in relationships has been found to promote more adaptive relationships (Blais, Sabourin, Boucher, & Vallerand, 1990). The interdependence between autonomy and intimacy has been incorporated within several psychological theories and highlighted as a ubiquitous dialectic phenomena no one can refrain from as social human beings. For instance, the Dialectical Theory of Interpersonal Relationships posits that connection and autonomy are two opposing forces that continuously are being adjusted in close relationships (Baxter, 1988), arguing that this dialectic in fact is the very exigency of relating. Similarly, the Self-Determination Theory regards well-being as emerging from the fulfillment of relatedness, autonomy, and competence needs (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000). Likewise, Attachment Theory also highlights this alternation between comfortable closeness and self-confident autonomy as a chore issue in close relationships (Bowlby, 1982). When there exist a secure attachment within a romantic relationship, closeness and reliance on the partner have been learnt to be completely compatible with distance and autonomy (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Such interdependence dilemmas among insecurely attached
individuals in romantic relationships have been highlighted over the past decades by scholars from different disciplines. However, researchers still have not provided an overview of autonomy- and intimacy-promoting behaviors within romantic relationships, and even less uncovered how these successfully could be adopted among individuals characterized by an insecure attachment
orientation to their partner. The current thesis therefore focuses on the first need, in order to set the stage for tackling the second. Furthermore, the positive emotion of kama muta (Sanskrit: being moved) is theorized as an emotional reinforcer of interpersonal closeness, accompanying and marking moments of increased closeness and motivating devotion to the relationship (Seibt,
Schubert, Zickfeld, & Fiske, 2017). Thus, kama muta may reward both the enactment and reception of positive behaviors towards the partner, and by such motivate such behaviors and contribute to relationship satisfaction. So far, no published research exists on whether and how such moments may have this effect.
The purposes of the current thesis are twofold: 1) to develop a valid and reliable self-report measure of self-initiated autonomy- and intimacy-promoting love expressions (hereafter called
”self-initiated love expressions”) within romantic relationships, and 2) to assess the unique contributions of these enacted behaviors in the prediction of relationship satisfaction, attachment orientation, and the experience of being moved within the relationship. I will start by examining the concepts of love and love expressions, next provide a review of the literature on autonomy and intimacy, then briefly summarize the literature on kama muta, and finally outline the theoretical framework of attachment for an inspection of love expressions among securely and insecurely attached individuals. From these, I will derive the central research questions to be examined in two pilot studies and one main study.
Conceptualizing Love
Considering the scope and immensity of publications on love, it shouldn’t be a surprise that there also exists an abundant of attempts to conceptualize love. Berscheid (2010) reviewed the literature on typologies of love, and laid out a quadrumvirate model presenting Companionate Love, Romantic Love (in this article referred to as Passionate Love), Compassionate Love, and Adult Attachment Love as the most theoretically coherent distinction of the concept. Companionate Love has been defined as ”the affection we feel for those with whom our lives are deeply
entwined” (Berscheid & Walster, 1978, p.9), reflecting a close friendship where a genuine mutual concern for each other is present (Grote & Frieze, 1994). Passionate Love has instead been defined as ”a state of intense longing for union with another” (Berscheid & Walster, 1978, p.9).
Furthermore, love has been conceptualized as an attachment process (Harlow, 1959; Hazan &
Shaver, 1987), with Attachment Love being defined as a strong affectional bond to an attachment
figure (Bowlby, 1979) that becomes particularly evident when a person is distressed or experiences a separation from or a reunion with them. Finally, Compassionate Love has been defined as ”an attitude toward other(s)…that are focused on caring, concern, tenderness, and an orientation toward supporting, helping, and understanding the other(s), particularly when the other(s) is(are) perceived to be suffering or in need” (Sprecher & Fehr, 2005, p.630).
To a large extent (and evident in the definitions above), love has been conceptualized as an emotion or disposition toward someone, reflected in attitudes and beliefs. However, it could be argued that love solely defined as an emotion or disposition is erroneous, or at best fragmentary and insufficient, suffering from a serious myopia in treating it as a purely intra-individual phenomenon when it in fact could be said not to exist without interpersonal processes. Both felt emotion and the behavioral manifestations of it may be so inextricably intertwined that neither one of them may represent a complete definition of love. However, despite both of them being necessary for a
comprehensive account of love, they nevertheless need to be isolated in scales to be able to measure their separate contributions to relationship satisfaction and other pivotal variables in predicting relationship continuation. With a few exceptions (Reis, Maniaci, & Rogge, 2014), there exists a gap within the love research to focus on the behavioral manifestations of love, which is reflected in the few instruments measuring it. In the current thesis, the incorporated potential of spontaneous, self- initiated love expressions in neutral or benign contexts will be investigated instead of responses to communicated needs in stressful or exploratory situations. By such, the investigated love
expressions will lie conceptually closer to Companionate and Passionate Love than to
Compassionate Love. However, since much research exists on how caregiving, support provision and responsiveness is affecting and is affected by attachment orientation, while virtually no research exists on self-initiated love expressions, behavioral manifestations of Compassionate Love will not be strictly avoided in this literature review. In the current study, love expressions are conceptualized as self-initiated behaviors that signal emotions of Companionate and Passionate Love for a
romantic partner. These behaviors unfold against a backdrop of Adult Attachment Love representing a strong sense of security characterized by high levels of autonomy and intimacy.
Conceptualizing Autonomy
The word autonomy stems from the Greek word ”autónomos”, meaning ”one who gives oneself one’s own law”. This ancient word clearly refers to the capability of making decisions without the coercion from others. Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000) underline the behavior accompanying the cognitive contemplations and decisions. According to this
perspective, autonomy is reflecting to what degree one’s behavior is considered being volitional, personally initiated and endorsed, and stemming from integrated values rather than being coerced
by internal expectations or external forces. This kind of autonomy is not equitable to independence, detachment, or self-interest. Koestner et al. (1999) called the latter characteristics ”reactive
autonomy” (defined as resisting influence and striving for independence; Murray, 1938) and
distinguished this theoretically and empirically from Deci and Ryan’s (2000) ”reflective autonomy”.
Reflective autonomy is only weakly correlating with reactive autonomy, and the former has been shown to predict more satisfying and intimate interactions with friends and family, openness to advices from experts (Koestner & Losier, 1996; Hodgins, Koestner, & Duncan, 1996), as well as fewer attempts to blame others in socially awkward events (Hodgins & Liebeskind, 2003).
In a developmental perspective, autonomy becomes increasingly more related to one’s quest for identity, as one approaches adolescence (Berk, 2013), and the susceptibility for parental or peer influence typically decreases toward adulthood. At the same time, it is precisely this openness for interactions, advices, and influence from others that characterizes the more adaptive form for autonomy (reflective autonomy). Similarly, the philosopher Immanuel Kant (Sensen, 2013)
emphasized that rational decisions, which the experience of autonomy was based upon, could not be arrived in isolation, but through interactions with others. By such, autonomy can be viewed as an openness for influence and simultaneously a conviction that one’s subsequent volitional choices and corresponding behaviors are of value regardless of other’s opinions.
According to Self-Determination Theory, behaviors become more self-determined as they are viewed as important for one’s identity and also become integrated with identities adopted to represent the self-concept, a process called an ”organismic integration” (Deci & Ryan, 1987).
Whether some specific behaviors and identities are integrated or not, and by such come to constitute a central part of the self, depends on both how much the behaviors or identities contribute to fulfill psychological needs, as well as the level of support received from the social environment. Such social-contextual factors varies along a continuum from being autonomy supportive to controlling.
Correspondingly, behaviors can be conceptualized along a continuum from entirely endorsed to entirely determined by the self, in which intrinsic motivation (the highest level of autonomy) is distinguished from the extrinsic ones based on whether the behavior is done for its inherent satisfaction or for the purpose of obtaining a separable goal.
The Self-Determination Theory’s definition of autonomy is closely related to the concept of agency, which reflects the capacity of an individual to enact on the personally constructed
decisions. Psychologists have long argued that agency, the feeling of being competent, capable, and effective, is a basic motive for human beings (Bakan, 1966; Wiggins, 1979), and the need for competence within the perspective of Self-Determination Theory echoes exactly this notion. The feeling of competence has repeatedly been found to enhance intrinsic motivation (Guay, Ratelle,
Roy, & Litalien, 2010), and amotivated individuals typically experience feelings of incompetence.
Thus, it could be said to be a central understructure for autonomy. For this reason, competence is included within the conceptualization of autonomy in this current study. Based on the presented research findings and definitions, autonomy is in this thesis conceptualized as ”the desire to grow as a person, the belief that personally constructed decisions are meaningful and volitional, and the belief that sufficient competence exists to bring about the corresponding behaviors”.
To be able to capture the concept of autonomy when generating items for the autonomy promoting love expression scale, it will however, be essential to have an a priori understanding of the behavioral characteristics of autonomy derived from the extensive previous research. I here present the behavioral characteristics of autonomy in four paragraphs, highlighting self-supporting behavior, expressions of needs and wants, exploration of the self-concept, and self-expanding activities.
Self-supporting Behavior. Self-supporting behavior is a concept that reflects autonomous acts (Huang & Che, 2003). During the developmental process, individuals increasingly become able to take care of themselves in daily life. This may be manifested in many ways, but examples of such behavior when reaching adulthood may be to manage one’s finances, taking care of one’s physical and mental health, taking initiative to start or complete projects, doing things by oneself, making plans for the future, and making decisions that reflect the ability to apply consequential thinking. In a romantic relationship context, self-supporting behavior (which here also comprises other-
supporting behavior) should predict higher levels of experienced autonomy in the actor, but also in the partner, who will perceive a decreased necessity to fulfill urgent basal needs because of shared responsibility. This should in turn provide more energy and time for the partner to engage in enjoyable activities and projects that may satisfy other autonomy needs.
Expressions of Needs and Wants. Autonomous individuals feel free to express what they think, need, prefer, and want (Wolman, Campeau, Dubois, Mithaug, & Stolarski,1994). Being self- directed is something all individuals desire and strive for (Chen et al., 2015), but to what degree individuals feel free to enact on it, depends on several factors. The ongoing interactions in a romantic relationship will highly affect the individual’s experience of the need for autonomy being satisfied, and what specific kinds of communication that are needed for this, probably depends on both the individuals’ dispositional autonomy and the characteristics of the situation. Legault (2016) posits, however, that autonomy-supportive contexts typically offer choice and opportunity for self- direction, nurture inner motivational resources, offer rationales, use informational sentences instead of directives or commands, and align activities with the other person’s preferences and interests.
With interactions characterized by these features, there should be good opportunities for individuals
to experience freedom to choose, to set boundaries, and in general express what they need and want in their daily lives together with their partner.
Exploration of Self-concept. For people to even be able to express their own needs and wishes, however, they need to have a basic understanding of whom they are or wish to be. Research has demonstrated that individual’s autonomy is closely linked to their self-concept (what
individuals perceive as ”me” or ”mine”). More specifically, the greater the degree of autonomy, the more positive self-concept the individuals hold (Ling, Luo, Zhang, 2013). Furthermore, individuals who demonstrate self-concept clarity also have more authentic multiple selves as well as more accessible, stable, and resilient feelings of self-worth (Showers, Ditzfeld, & Zeigler-Hill, 2015).
Lastly, an expanded self-concept seem to have a positive impact on many aspects of life, for instance on both self-esteem and self-efficacy (Aron, Paris, & Aron, 1995). Thus, it is when the self-concept is narrow that individuals theoretically would need to expand it the most.
Unfortunately, however, lower self-concept clarity predicts less interest in self-expansion as well as less actual self-expansion. This was found in three studies executed by Emery, Walsh, & Slotter (2015). The authors suggest that individuals will not take on their partner’s characteristics and by such expand the diversity of their self-concept if they are uncertain about who they are, as this would only increase their confusion about the self. So, how then could individuals with a narrow self-concept find motivation to expand it? Self-Expansion Theory (Aron & Aron, 1986, 1996) holds that self-expansion may be achieved through close relationships where individuals gain access to new perspectives and resources from their partners. For this to be realized, engagements in
conversations with the partner may be necessary and fruitful. This is in line with what Feeney and Collins (2004) highlighted as essential when promoting the partner’s explorations in adulthood; to support his/her thoughts and emotions related to self-discovery.
Self-expanding Activities. Another way toward increasing the self-concept clarity and the motivation for self-expansion is to actually engage in an active pursuit of goals and self-expanding activities despite a lack of current motivation for it. This is because an active pursuit of established goals and participation in self-expanding activities are closely related to perceived agency and feeling of competence, which in turn affect the motivation. When individuals engage in challenging activities, they will experience a sense of victory if they perceive that they overcame the struggle.
This increases their motivation for engaging in similar activities again.
Even though individual self-expansion may represent a potential threat to the
interdependence (Murray et al., 2009), individual self-expansion seem to have a positive effect on romantic relationships over time as individuals move closer toward their ”ideal selves” (the
”Michelangelo Phenomenon”; Drigotas, Rusbult, Wieselquist, & Whitton, 1999). This may explain
why partner support of goal strivings have been found to predict the feeling of thriving in romantic relationships (Tomlinson, Feeney, & Van Vleet, 2016) and relationship satisfaction (Brunstein, Dangelmeyer, & Schultheiss, 1996; Kaplan & Maddux, 2002). However, Graham and Harf (2015) discovered in their five studies that a challenging activity’s effect on relationship quality depended on the skill of the individual, which fully mediated the process through changes in affect. Thus, for challenges to promote motivation for repeating the activity, to breed positive emotions, and to enhance relationship quality, they need to provide the opportunity for success. Accordingly, the construction of adequately set goals may be a vital first step.
Conceptualizing Intimacy
Intimacy is reflecting the innate basic human need to establish close bonds (Maslow, 1968;
Sullivan, 1953; Bowlby, 1969/1982). Erikson (1968) linked it to the experience of selfhood, and viewed intimacy as the process of fusing identities into a coherent entity. Similarly, Aron, Aron, and Smollan (1992) regarded the inclusion of the other into the self as a central aspect of a bonding process. Several researchers have emphasized the feelings of closeness when defining intimacy. As Baumeister and Bratslavsky (1999) later commented, however, such definitions lack precision as the metaphorical use of ”closeness” could generate fallacies. They instead posited that intimacy had three main dimensions, and involved mutual disclosure of personal information, a strong favorable attitude toward the other, and lastly, communication of affection. Because of a myriad of intimacy definitions, Moss and Schwebel (1993) extracted seven themes from 61 unique definitions, from which they proposed a new definition: ”Intimacy in enduring romantic relationships is determined by the level of commitment and positive affect, cognitive, and physical closeness one experiences with a partner in a reciprocal (although not necessarily symmetrical) relationship" (p.33).
Definitions of any phenomena, may either constitute a narrow definition of what it is, or also add some typical characteristics of it. In the introduction part of the current study, intimacy in a romantic relationship will be defined narrowly with an emphasis on the emotional aspects of it.
Based on the results on the behavioral manifestations of them, a new operational definition of it may emerge. Through an extraction and combination of wordings from Baumeister and Bratslavsky (1999) and Moss and Schwebel (1993), intimacy is here defined as: ”The level of trust, commitment and positive affect you experience with a romantic partner, and the belief that the romantic partner, on the basis of a thorough knowledge of you, holds positive evaluations and feelings toward you”.
This definition is encompassing both the individual’s receptivity of including the other in to the self and also mutuality, which has been highlighted as a prerequisite for intimacy to exist (Moss &
Schwebel, 1993). In fact, only one individual within a couple reporting perceived high closeness has been found to have no effect on the partner’s relationship satisfaction, while mutually high
perceptions of closeness, in contrast, is associated with mutual satisfaction and positive attributions for partner behavior (Cropley & Reid, 2008).
To be able to capture the concept of intimacy when generating items for the intimacy promoting love expression scale, however, it will also here be crucial to have an a priori
understanding of the behavioral characteristics of intimacy. The description of these, presented in the next three paragraphs, highlighting mutual disclosure of personal information, positive communication of affection, and physical proximity, touch, and sex, are derived from
multidimensional and operational definitions (McAdams, 1988; Waring, 1988; Patterson, 1984;
Ben-Ari & Lavee, 2007) as well as from previous research on intimacy.
Mutual Disclosure of Personal Information. Psychologists often advocate openness and disclosure of affection as necessary ingredients for healthy relationships and well-being (Floyd et al., 2005). A meta-analysis found three distinct significant effects for disclosure on liking in
ongoing relationships and weaker, but still significant, effects in initial encounters among strangers.
Those who engaged more in intimate disclosure tended to be liked more, furthermore, when initially liking someone, people tended to disclose more, and lastly, having disclosed to someone tended to result in people liking the receiver of the disclosure better (Collins & Miller, 1994). The directional link therefore seem to go both ways. The activity of sharing feelings, thoughts, and ideas with a partner reinforces intimacy, but also experienced intimacy will predict the desire for
meaningful conversations (Birtchnell, 1993).
Some researchers have distinguished between factual and emotional self-disclosure (Reis &
Shaver, 1988), and found that emotional self-disclosures are more predictive of intimacy (Reis, 2017). Moreover, Reis & Shaver's (1988) interpersonal process model of intimacy suggest that both disclosure of one’s personal weaknesses or fears, but also partner responsiveness, are essential ingredients. Their model has later turned out to be supported in research that have found
supportiveness and reciprocity to be necessary components for emotional expressions to actually be relationship or intimacy enhancing (McKinnon & Greenberg, 2017). Indeed, a social validation based upon the knowledge that the other knows one’s personal vulnerabilities, may be experienced as especially comforting, deliberating, and rewarding.
Positive Communication of Affection. Words or acts that signal positive evaluations and feelings for the other may also contribute to higher intimacy levels. Verbal love expressions have been suggested as functional in romantic relationships because they have a role in confirming the importance and topicality of such voluntary institutions (Caldwell-Harris, Kronrod, & Yang, 2013).
This is supported by studies showing that post-sex confessions of love (i.e., saying ”I love you”) signal intentions of a long-term commitment (Ackerman, Griskevicious, & Li, 2011). Similarly,
explicit expression of valuing a relationship has been found to be one of the primary factors associated with closeness in friendships (Park & Floyd, 1996). Positive regard can be
communicated in many ways, where some may be more intimacy promoting than others. Gratitude for instance, which has been associated with beneficial outcomes in romantic relationships, has been found to correlate weakly with intimacy (Murray & Hazelwood, 2011). However, the associations between gratitude and intimacy are so far poorly understood. Furthermore, voicing a sexual desire for the partner may promote intimacy. Despite an insignificant correlation (possibly because of a small sample, n = 86), sexting (sending erotic messages) to a partner was in one study found to be strongly associated with intimacy (Parker, Blackburn, Perry, & Hawks, 2013).
Finally, positive communication of affection may not only be expressed through words, but also through acts of caregiving, which Feeney (1999) identified as important for the sense of dyadic closeness. This association was especially strong among males, which may indicate that some men tend to prefer acts of caregiving when seeking to develop intimacy in romantic relationships over unsolicited intimate conversations.
Physical Proximity, Touch, and Sex. Across the lifespan, physical touch and cuddling are among the key features of intimacy in close relationships (Bowlby, 1973). This is also evident specifically in romantic relationships, where greater frequency of physical affection has been linked to higher levels of psychological intimacy (Debrot, Schoebi, Perrez, & Horn, 2013) and relationship satisfaction (Gulledge, Gulledge, & Stahmann, 2003). Even in couples with already high rates of mutual touch, responsive touch is substantially, positively associated with changes in momentary affect, mediated by increased intimacy experiences by the receiving partner (Debrot et al., 2013). In fact, the more satisfied individuals are in their relationship, the stronger the positive effects of touching (Coan, Schaefer, & Davidson, 2006). Furthermore, frequent and high enjoyment of cuddling have been found to correlate with frequent and enjoyable sexual activity within the
romantic relationship (van Anders, Edelstein, Wade, and Samples-Steele, 2013), which may indicate that cuddling leads to sexual attraction or vice versa, and/or reflect an underlying emotional
intimacy affecting both behaviors. Finally, individuals who feel close to their partner typically also report a desire to share the same space as him/her (Ben-Ari & Lavee, 2007). In fact, comfort with spatial proximity, cuddling, and physical touch may be among the most noticeable love expressions couples engage in, indicating a healthy relationship.
Physical touch seem to impact people in non-conscious and intricate ways. Repeatedly, research has demonstrated that active touch (i.e., hands being used on objects) has the power to manipulate the mind, influencing social cognitive processing. One recent study found that physical touch, regardless the intensity and valence of felt emotion, seemed to start the process of
somatovisceral resonance between couples, which may be likely to establish the foundation for emotional contagion and empathy (Chatel-Goldman, Condego, Jutten, & Schwartz, 2014). It is particularly interesting that the strongest effects were found among couples who scored lower on the empathy scale. In sum, there does not only exist a strong positive correlation between physical touch and intimate bonds in romantic relationships, but there exist multiple evidence for the directionality, specifying interpersonal tactile stimulation as a prerequisite for intensifying the bonds between romantic partners (Gallace & Spencer, 2010).
Kama Muta in Romantic Relationships
Experiences of kama muta in romantic relationships carry a potential of drawing individuals closer toward each other. Kama muta is a positive emotion that is often characterized by specific sensations when it is strongly felt (Seibt, Schubert, Zickfeld, & Fiske, 2017), like a warm feeling in the center of the chest, moist eyes or tears, chills, or being choked up. Since it is a positive emotion, people report joy and happiness when experiencing it, and as a result of this they also like to repeat the situation that evoked it. The Kama Muta Theory (Fiske, Seibt, & Schubert, 2019) proposes that it is evoked by the perception of a sudden intensification of communal sharing relationship (CSR;
A. P. Fiske, 1991, 1992), the most fundamental form of sociality experienced within a dyad or group. In CSRs individuals feel that they are equivalent in some way, whether in love, identity, solidarity, or some other essential respect, and feel that they belong together, care for each other, and trust each other (Fiske, et al., 2019). Some of the characteristics of CSR include identification and kindness, which explains the correlation between kama muta experiences and empathic concern (r = .35) found in one meta-analysis (Zickfeld, Schubert, Seibt, & Fiske, 2017). This suggests that feeling compassion for someone in need is a specific form of kama muta (Fiske, et al., 2019).
Kama muta is defined as the concurrent presence of a number of features, none of which being essential for diagnosing a kama muta experience, but each of them being indicative (Fiske, Schubert, & Seibt, 2017). Specifically, kama muta consists in 1) an appraisal of an event as suddenly increasing a CSR, 2) the presence of a number of indicative sensations and signs, most notably a warm feeling in the center of the chest, tears, and goosebumps, 3) the experience of the feeling as positive, 4) a motivation to devote oneself the CSR being intensified, and 5) a tendency to label the experience as being moved or touched in English (rørt, beveget in Norwegian).
Little is known, however, about how Companionate and Passionate Love are associated with the experience of kama muta. Furthermore, more knowledge is needed about the preos of kama muta (the manner in which they occur). This will be essential to investigate if they should be realized in a particular moment. More specifically, no one has ever looked into whether and how self-initiated love expressions may elicit such an emotional response. Kama muta has a unique
potential of strengthening, repairing, or sustaining CSRs because of its characteristic devotion motivation and moral commitment (Steinnes, Blomster, Seibt, Zickfeld, & Fiske, 2019; Zickfeld, 2015). Evoking kama muta may therefore represent an extraordinarily potent intervention in couples seeking to improve their relationship satisfaction. However, in light of previous empirical evidence of kama muta being predicted by appraisals of increased closeness (Seibt, Schubert, Zickfeld, & Fiske, 2017), it is likely that the experience of this emotion, just like the feeling of autonomy and intimacy in romantic relationships, depend on individuals’ attachment orientation.
Attachment Orientation in Romantic Relationships
The attachment system, as specified by Bowlby (1982), is driven by one primary goal: to obtain a sense of felt security. Based upon assembled attachment experiences with caretakers and close others, individuals develop internal working models of the self and others as well as strategies for obtaining this sense of security, which are manifested in beliefs, personality, behaviors, and emotion regulations. Today, these mental models are conceptualized as two-dimensional where attachment is measured along anxiety and avoidance (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998). With low scores on both attachment dimensions, the attachment orientation is considered being secure, and a primary attachment strategy is typically being used. According to Bowlby (1982), this primary strategy is comprised by a repertoire of behaviors that serve to establish or maintain proximity.
When the strategy is successful, individuals feel secure, which in turn provide them with a possibility to shift focus from protection to explorations instead. With this cycle being repeated, individuals learn that autonomy and intimacy are compatible with each other. Consequently, securely attached individuals (hereafter called ”secure individuals”) are generally comfortable with intimacy, trust that their partners will be responsive to their needs, feel loved (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003), and enjoy engaging in exploratory activities (Aspelmeier & Kerns, 2003).
When the primary attachment strategy of proximity seeking is failing to accomplish its set- goal (protection), certain secondary attachment strategies are likely to be adopted (Main, 1990).
Hyperactivating strategies are especially likely to develop when the attachment figure is
inconsistently responsive, and the individual learns that persistent attention and proximity seeking attempts sometimes succeed (Main, 1990). Consequently, anxiously attached individuals (hereafter called ”anxious individuals”) typically manifest excessive desire for closeness and intimacy, ambivalent expectations about others while negative expectations about the self, as well as chronic fears of being abandoned and not being valued by close others. Because of their preoccupation with attachment, constant monitoring for cues of acceptance and rejection, and sensitivity to internal distress, they tend to have little resources left for exploration and affiliation (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003).
Deactivating strategies, on the other hand, are especially likely to develop when the attachment figure disapprove or punish closeness, vulnerability, or the expressions of need (Main, 1990). Accordingly, avoidantly attached individuals (hereafter called ”avoidant individuals”) generally display a profound need for autonomy, dislike of emotional or physical intimacy, and negative expectations of others’ dependability and motives. Instead, the avoidant individual seeks to deal with threats alone, and to down-regulate or suppress any signs of need or vulnerability despite a sense of security not being achieved. Interestingly, in an attempt to prevent feelings of frustration, humiliation, failure and loss of control, avoidant individuals tend to go for a safe strategy through either choosing activities that are either very easy or very difficult, a strategy that impedes on the process of personal growth and decreases the chances for feelings of mastery (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Furthermore, avoidant individuals typically report less interest in promoting warm
interactions with their partner, and make less use of affectionate ”sweet talk” to express affection in conversations with their partner (Bombar & Littig, 1996).
Insecure Individuals and Given Love Expressions. According to Pistole (1994), problems arise in romantic relationships when negotiations of autonomy and intimacy are unsatisfying. Such regulation difficulty is the hallmark of an insecure attachment orientation. Pistole (1994) describes how the anxious individual’s fear for abandonment and associated extreme desire for closeness interfere with their own neglected needs for autonomy, but also interfere with their partner’s moves toward autonomy when such behaviors are interpreted as signs of rejection or hindered by intrusive support. Contrary, the avoidant individual’s extreme self-reliance and associated distancing
behavior interfere with their own neglected needs for intimacy, but they also interfere with their partner’s needs for intimacy and support.
Both anxiety and avoidance are likely to interfere with the provision of sensitive and responsive caregiving to their partner’s needs because of own distress and unsatisfied attachment needs. In a study conducted by Feeney and Collins (2015), specific motivations for holding back the support were unveiled. Here, negative views of the partner, discomfort providing the support, and a lack of skills, were specific reasons that avoidant support-providers reported for not helping, while anxious support-providers reported reasons such as pessimistic views of their partner, feelings of threat regarding their partners’ goal pursuits, and a lack of skills and resources (Feeney & Collins, 2015). These research findings reveal that both categories of insecure individuals experience a lack of knowledge about how to support their partners. They also reveal that what they regard as a threat (autonomy or intimacy), are motivational reasons for not providing support to their partner. This highlights the need for research to provide anxious and avoidant individuals with a behavioral chart of effective ways to communicate their love for their partner, as well as the need for research to
investigate how insecure individuals may overcome their fear of executing such behaviors.
Insecure Individuals and Received Love Expressions. Interestingly, attachment
orientations also predict what kind of support individuals receive. In fact, insecure explorers seem to have partners who are less available to them (Feeney & Thrush, 2010). Support-providers to avoidant individuals view their partners as unreceptive and not in need of their support, while anxious partners are regarded as unreceptive, difficult, and too dependent (Feeney, Collins, Van Vleet, & Tomlinson, 2013). These views may motivate individuals to limit their avoidant partners’
explorations and independence by providing less encouragement, or to limit their anxious partners’
dependency and hypersensitivity to rejection by responding less to their neediness (Feeney &
Thrush, 2010). Additionally, the extreme desire to receive solely autonomy or intimacy promoting support (Arriaga, Kumashiro, Finkel, VanderDrift, & Luchies, 2014) may also motivate partners to provide less support within these domains as an attempt to counteract the prevailing disproportion of autonomy-intimacy interdependence in the romantic relationship. Thus, a self-fulfilling prophecy may be playing a role in perpetuating the insecure individuals’ expectations that their partners will not support them sufficiently.
Nonetheless, research has shown that even when insecure individuals in fact do receive care from their partner, the recipients still view the partner as not caring and the benefit to be non- voluntarily given (Lemay & Clark, 2008). There exist intriguing findings demonstrating that this biased perception among avoidant individuals, only is linked to targets who provide the opportunity for intimacy (Spielmann, Maxwell, MacDonald, & Baratta, 2013), possibly reflecting a defense mechanism protecting them from increased dependency on a partner. Likewise, the insecurity among anxious individuals ironically has been found to increase when they receive compliments (Marigold, Holmes, & Ross, 2007), a peculiar finding in light of their characteristic low self-esteem and heightened need for affirmations. Consistent with other researchers’ speculations (Wood, Anthony, & Foddis, 2006), Marigold, Holmes, and Ross (2007) suggest that positive feedback has a rebound effect because it evokes self-discrepant standards and raise concerns of future rejections when it is revealed that they indeed are not worthy after all. Overall, biases appear to play a significant role in romantic relationships. At the other end of the continuum of such biases, the construct of positive illusion can be found, which is the tendency for individuals to perceive their partner more favorably than their partner views themselves (Neff & Karney, 2002) or the
relationship to have less negative and more positive characteristics than other’s relationships (Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996). Holding such positive illusions contributes to more generous interpretations of the partner’s shortcomings and are associated with greater care, trust, and intimacy (Song et al., 2019). Remarkably, it has been found to be the very best predictor for
Passionate Love (Cohen’s d: -0.991), compared to commitment, satisfaction, and other relationship- relevant variables. However, researchers still have yet to discover how such positive illusions may be enhanced and negative biased perceptions mitigated.
Receiving versus Giving Love Expressions. It is well established that receiving support and responsiveness are essential in dyadic relationships (Reis, Clark, & Holmes, 2004; Reis &
Clark, 2013). However, we still do not know much about how individuals’ given support and responsiveness affect their relationship satisfaction, not to mention within the realm of attachment orientation. Surprisingly, even though receiving support is crucial for relationship functioning, it has been linked to greater negative mood (Gleason, Iida, Shrout, & Bolger, 2008) while, on the
contrary, helping has been associated with mood enhancement (Sprecher, Fehr, & Zimmerman, 2007). Indeed, one recent study of 175 couples revealed that compassionate acts, defined as freely given caregiving, were even more beneficial for the giver compared to the recipient (Reis, Maniaci,
& Rogge, 2017). While the recipients’ benefits were dependent on whether they noticed the givers’
compassionate acts, the givers benefited regardless of the recipients’ noticing of it. How much individuals initiate and invest in their romantic relationships may therefore be found to serve as important antecedents for how the dynamics are played out.
Overview of the Current Studies
The current investigation has two principal aims. The first objective is to develop a reliable and valid self-report measure of self-initiated love expressions within romantic relationships. If this objective is achieved, the instrument may become a valuable tool in obtaining a more complete understanding of romantic relationship functioning, prompting further theory developments, and predicting central aspects like relationship satisfaction, kama muta experiences, and attachment orientation. Furthermore, the instrument may turn out to be particularly practical for interventions and for future experimental studies, providing a behavioral chart of love expressions, a potential resource for both researchers, insecure individuals, and partners to insecure individuals.
For this first objective, two pilot studies will be conducted, one quantitative for an initial exploration of the associations between love expressions, attachment orientation, kama muta, and relationship satisfaction, and one qualitative pilot study to identify potential dimensions for the two love expression domains and to generate corresponding items. Subsequently, the empirical main study will be undertaken with the purpose of refining and validating the new scale (SAILS). Here, a central assumption for SAILS is a bidirectional effect of the love expressions, in which behavioral self-initiated enactments are promoting autonomy or intimacy in both the giver and the receiver of the love expressions. The second principal objective for the current investigation is to use the SAILS to explore its potential to predict relationship satisfaction, kama muta experiences, and
attachment orientation. The primary analyses of the main study as well as additional exploratory analyses were pregistered at OSF Preregistration.
The series of studies were approved by the Internal Research Ethics Committee of the Department of Psychology at the University of Oslo (reference number: 5936712). In both pilot studies and in the main study participants were given instructions and information about the study procedures, contact information to principal investigator, and information about their rights.
Deception was not utilized in any of the studies. In the quantitative studies, participants confirmed their informed consent by proceeding with the study. In the qualitative study, their informed 1 consent was documented with an ID log in nettskjema.no or a written signature . The Norwegian 2 3 Center of Research Data had granted permission to collect these identifiable consents in the qualitative pilot study (NSD; reference number: 468806). After the completion of the studies, debriefing was given to the participants, where the rational behind conducting the study was provided.
Pilot Study 1
A pilot study was conducted with the objective of exploring the relations between the main variables that were relevant for the main study. With a correlational design, I sought to investigate the following research questions: 1) What are the descriptive statistics of attachment orientation, kama muta experiences, love languages, and relationship satisfaction in romantic relationships? 2) What are the characteristics of the reported kama muta experiences within the romantic
relationship? 3) How are kama muta experiences in a romantic relationship related to attachment orientation and relationship satisfaction? 4) How are frequency and satisfaction with frequency of received love languages related to attachment orientation and relationship satisfaction? 5) How are preferences of received or expressed love languages in a romantic relationship related to attachment orientation and relationship satisfaction?
Method
Participants. Individuals over 18 years of age who reported being currently in a romantic relationship were recruited as participants for pilot study 1. Scandinavian participants were recruited through convenience sampling on social media and email, while American individuals were recruited from Clickworker where each of them received 3.75 USD as a reward for
participating. The final sample of 86 participants consisted of 41 males and 45 females, in which 4 5
See Appendix A for the informed consent form for the quantitative studies.
1
See Appendix B for the informed consent form for the qualitative study.
2
For one Swedish participant who did not have the possibility to make use of the Norwegian ID log in system, and one
3
Norwegian participant who had technical issues when trying to log in digitally.
See Appendix C for a more detailed description of the final sample and the exclusion criteria.
4
One individual defined his/her gender as ”other”.
5
54 (62,8%) of them were recruited from mainly Scandinavian countries and the remaining 32 participants (37,2%) from the United States.
Procedure and Materials. An English questionnaire was developed using Qualtrics as the survey platform, and all items were translated into Norwegian and Swedish, ending up with a survey being presented in 3 different languages. After doing the initial translations on my own, I discussed each sentence of the translation into Swedish with a native Swedish speaker and made some changes. All recruited participants had to answer the same questions.
Attachment orientation was measured with Experiences in Close Relationships,
Relationship Structures Questionnaire (ECR-RS; Fraley, Heffernan, Vicary, & Brumbaug, 2011).
This instrument has 9 items where 6 of them measure attachment avoidance (4 reverse keyed) and 3 measure attachment anxiety (hereafter called only ”avoidance” and ”anxiety", respectively).
Response categories range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The avoidance items were averaged into an avoidance index (α = .84), the anxiety items into an anxiety index (α = .90), and all items, reversed from avoidance and anxiety, were averaged into a security index (α = .86).
Relationship satisfaction was measured with a short-version of Relationship Satisfaction Questionnaire (RS10; Røysamb, Vittersø, & Tambs, 2014) containing 5 items (RS5; 2 items reverse-coded). Response categories range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). As suggested by the authors, one of the items was replaced with another item from RS10, since the statement ”We agree on how children should be raised” was irrelevant for couples without children.
The scale demonstrated excellent reliability in this pilot study (α = .88). A total score and average were calculated for all items.
Kama muta experiences within the relationship was measured with a description of one specific kama muta experience, a text entry of when the situation happened, the Kama Muta Scale Short US (KAMMUS-S; Zickfeld et al., 2019), as well as one question from the Kama Muta
Frequency Scale (KAMF; Zickfeld, et al., 2019). The KAMMUS-S consists of 5 sections measuring sensations (5 items), communal sharing (2 items), motivation (2 items), valence (1 item), and labels (2 items) with a 7-point Likert scale (0 = not at all, 6 = a lot). I calculated a total kama muta score by averaging all items and scores for the 5 subscales. The response categories from KAMF were used for quantifying how often the individuals experienced being moved in the relationship (0 = never, 1 = less than once a month, 2 = once a month, 3 = 2-3 times a month, 4 = once a week, 5 = 2-3 times a week, 6 = about once a day, and 7 = two or more times per day). Finally, participants were asked to consider what category among 5 different love languages the kama muta situation may have been elicited from, alternatively write a different category. The scale indicated high reliability (α = .85).
Love Languages were measured with an altered version of the forced-choice 60 item long 5 Love Languages Personal Profile for couples (5LLPP; Chapman, 2015). The 5LLPP was altered 6 into a 60-item measurement that rank-ordered the 5 love languages in 6 sections of preferred received love languages as well as 6 sections of preferred expressed love languages. For the analyses, each of the 12 sections were averaged separately. Also, two additional questions about love languages were included, asking how many days per week the participants received each love language from their partners (0-7 days) and how satisfied they were with this level of received love languages. These questions were measured with a 7-point Likert scale (1 = very unsatisfied, and 6 = very satisfied). When assessing the internal consistency for both received and expressed preferred love languages together in Pilot Study 1, four of the subscales yielded Cronbach’s alpha coefficients considered as acceptable to very good (words: α = .70, gifts: α = .85, acts: α = .68, touch: α = .72).
The subscale of time, however, indicated poor reliability (α = .53). When the content of the items were investigated, they were interpreted as representing 2 different categories (sensory attention and experiences). This may have affected their internal consistency.
Results and Discussion
Descriptive Statistics of Variables . Most participants were found to be quite securely 7 attached to their partner (M = 5.85, SD = 1.00), reporting low levels of avoidance (M = 2.09, SD = . 97) and low levels of anxiety (M = 2.26, SD = 1.54). Furthermore, participants reported being reasonably happy with their current romantic relationship (M = 4.94, SD = 1.00).
Kama muta within the romantic relationship. The majority of the participants recalled a situation in their romantic relationship where they felt kama muta. Sixty-one participants (70,9%) 8 described one specific situation, while 11 participants (12,8%) mentioned several. The remaining 8 participants (9,3%) described feeling kama muta when reflecting on some partner- or relationship characteristics, without mentioning any specific situation. Most of the descriptions (75,6%) were about the partner saying or doing something for the participant, a dynamic defined as 2nd person kama muta in which another target suddenly intensifies a communal sharing relation towards
oneself (Seibt, Schubert, Zickfeld, & Fiske, 2017). The rest of the descriptions told a story about the participant saying or doing something for the partner that resulted in experiencing kama muta (4,7%; 1st person kama muta), about the participant observing the partner engaging in something with other persons that evoked the emotion (4,7%; 3rd person kama muta), or about some mixed or other kama muta evoking path (8,2%). Unfortunately, no question about pre-conditions to the kama
See Appendix C for a more detailed description of the instrument.
6
See Appendix C for a description of the manipulation of data prior to the analyses.
7
See Appendix D for examples of kama muta descriptions in Pilot Study 1.
8
muta situation was asked in the survey, which resulted in no specification about this from 48 participants (55,8%). However, the remaining answers (44,2%) included descriptions of negative pre-conditions, like being in a bad mood, or experiencing worries, pain or sickness, tiredness, or feelings of sadness or anger. Three of the participants (3,5%) did not report how long ago the kama muta situation happened, but the rest reported that the situation happened about 2-3 weeks earlier (M = 3.03, SD = 1.67) on average, and experienced kama muta within the romantic relationship close to once a week (M = 3.74, SD = 1.91).
The KAMMUS scale measured the intensity of kama muta in the reported situation. Except from sensations, which participants rated experiencing some of (M = 3.08, SD = 1.16), the four other subscales revealed a quite high level of kama muta components (communal sharing: M = 4.60, SD = 1.15, motivation: M = 5.30, SD = .89, valence: M = 5.56, SD = .78, and labels: M = 4.63, SD = 1.32).
Preference for received and expressed love language. By rank ordering the most preferred received love language from 1 to 5, a 5 indicated the most preferred one after reversing the scores.
The most preferred received love language among participants were words (M = 3.68, SD = .70).
Touch came on a second (M = 3.32, SD = .79). Time and acts of service shared the third place with almost identical means (time: M = 2.89, SD = .57, acts: M = 2.87, SD = .76), while gifts was the love language that was least preferred among the participants (M = 2.25, SD = .81). The preferences for love language expressions showed the exact same pattern.
Frequency of and satisfaction with received love languages. Participants reported
receiving the different love languages from their partner approximately 4 days per week (M = 3.77, SD = 1.47) and were quite satisfied with the reported amount (M = 4.72, SD = .96). The dispersion around the mean, however, was high for both of the variables. Of the five different love languages, the participants reported receiving touch the most (M = 5.29, SD = 2.20), thereafter words (M = 4.57, SD = 2.14), time (M = 4.15, SD = 2.04), acts (M = 3.84, SD = 2.18) and lastly gifts (M = .99, SD = 1.52). The participants were most satisfied with the amount of physical touch they received and the least satisfied with the amount of words they received (Mtouch = 4.87, SD = 1.25; Macts = 4.70, SD = 1.26; Mgifts = 4.69, SD = 1.13; Mtime = 4.67, SD = 1.25; Mwords = 4.66, SD = 1.41).
However, these results were not straight-forward to interpret since it was not clear whether the participants’ reported levels of satisfaction reflected a wish for a lower or higher frequency of the received love languages.
Relations Between Variables. The pilot study replicated previous research findings exhibiting a pattern of positive, strong associations between attachment security and relationship satisfaction (ρ = .66, p < .001). In particular, avoidance strongly predicted low levels of relationship
satisfaction (ρ = -.68, p < .001), while anxiety showed a negative, fairly moderate correlation (ρ = -.
39, p = .002). Avoidance and anxiety were positively and moderately correlated (ρ = .49, p < .001).
This corroborates what Fraley and colleagues (2011) found when developing their relationship- specific inventory of attachment orientation (ECR-RS; partner: r = .44), and stands in contrast to the weak correlations typically reported in previous research that have used instruments that have not differentiated between relational domains (i.e., Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998; r = .13).
Kama muta. Attachment avoidance correlated negatively with kama muta (ρ = -.25, p = . 026). The negative, moderate correlations with communal sharing, valence, and motivations may indicate that more avoidant individuals appraise the kama muta experience as promoting less closeness, being a less positive emotion, and feel less motivated to behaviorally confirm a bond with the partner compared to more secure individuals. It may be that avoidant individuals to a greater extent than secure individuals are capable of ”turning off” or actively seek to fight the intimacy related appraisals and behaviors when they suddenly are evoked. Alternatively, the results reflect a continuous management of upholding a rigid emotional distancing stance toward the partner that just doesn’t make the avoidant individual susceptible to strong kama muta experiences in the first place. However, an exploration of the relation between avoidance and different kama muta aspects speaks against this latter interpretation, since avoidance did not correlate with kama muta sensations (ρ = -.02, p = .896), but did correlate with the other aspects (Communal Sharing: ρ
= -.40, p < .001; Motivations: ρ = -.44, p < .001; Valence: ρ = -.34, p = .002; Labels: ρ = -.34, p = . 003). A plausible explanation may therefore be that avoidant individuals have the same
susceptibility as secure individuals to be affected by kama muta situations, but kama muta’s inherent positive, intimacy promoting processes are quickly counteracted by effective defense mechanisms.
The pilot study also investigated how the frequency of kama muta experiences within the relationship was associated with attachment security. A weak, positive correlation (ρ = .36, p = . 001), indicated that high frequency of being moved was associated with higher levels of attachment security. However, among the two dimensions, only avoidance yielded a significant correlation with kama muta frequency (ρ = -.36, p = .001), reflecting a weak, negative relation between the
variables. Could it be that avoidant individuals or their partners create less opportunities for situations that typically evoke kama muta responses? Alternatively, the association suggests that it is specifically the intimacy promoting love expressions that account for the kama muta experiences.
Unfortunately, the love languages did not seem to differentiate well between autonomy and intimacy promoting love expressions, indicated by their mixed associations with attachment orientation, and for this reason, this alternative explanation could not be examined.
Moreover, the results indicated a weak, positive correlation between the frequency of kama muta experiences in the romantic relationship and relationship satisfaction (ρ = .30, p = .006), with high frequency of kama muta experiences associated with higher levels of relationship satisfaction.
To my knowledge, this is the first study having investigated these relations. The results indicate that brief, positive, emotional kama muta experiences within the romantic relationships may indeed have an impact on the relationship satisfaction, possibly because of their potential to galvanize intimacy promoting processes. Of course, the correlational design of the pilot study does not allow any causal interferences to be made, but in light of extant previous literature establishing a link between avoidance and discomfort of intimacy, this interpretation is not unlikely to reflect the true causal direction.
Love languages. Both avoidance and anxiety correlated negatively, weakly with the
frequency of each received love language, except from gifts, indicating that low levels of receiving love languages from the partner was associated with higher levels of attachment insecurity. Again, the lack of differentiation between intimacy and autonomy promoting love expressions, restricted the interpretations of these findings.
The relation between attachment security and preferences of the different love languages was also investigated in the pilot study. There was a weak, negative correlation between the preference of expressing love through acts of service and attachment security (ρ = -.29, p = .008), with high levels of preferring expressing love through acts being associated with lower levels of attachment security. Both insecure attachment orientations showed this pattern (Avoidance: ρ = .25, p = .027; Anxiety: ρ = .24, p = .030). There was also a weak, but positive correlation between the preference of expressing love through touch and attachment security (ρ = .22, p = .044). However, their significant associations disappeared when differentiating between avoidance and anxiety (Avoidance: ρ = -.19, p = .090; Anxiety: ρ = -.20, p = .067). Finally, the preference of receiving gifts was positively, weakly correlated with anxiety (ρ = .24, p = .033). The first two preferences are puzzling, since avoidant and anxious individuals theoretically should and empirically have been found to demonstrate distinct behavioral tendencies in close relationships. It may be that their high correlations with each other make it problematic to interpret the results. Since SPSS does not provide a rank correlation option when requesting a partial correlation test, this problem was not elucidated further.
Relationship satisfaction. Two love language expression preferences turned out to be associated with relationship satisfaction. One of these was the preference of expressing love through touch, which was positively, weakly correlated with relationship satisfaction (ρ = .35, p = .