ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

After many decades of romantic relationship research, there is a new focus on a multidimensional model of love. This empirical study examines the multidimensionality and psychometrics of Passionate and Companionate love, based on an extensive study of 413 participants using Multidimensional Love Scale (MLS). A new statistical approach employed in this study explores the typology and structure of love. The statistical approach included the combination of Two-Step Cluster Analysis of cases and Principle Component Analysis of dimensions while using centered variable scores. The results reveal a typology of love based on its multidimensional structure. Further analysis revealed two main types of love: Passionate and Companionate, both containing several factors allowing for interpretation of their multidimensional structures. The MLS subscales and detailed psychometric analysis measuring specific love dimensions are incorporated to allow further research in other studies.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Psychometric Properties and Structures of Passionate and Companionate
Victor Karandashev*a, Stuart Clappa
[a] Aquinas College, Grand Rapids, MI, USA.
After many decades of romantic relationship research, there is a new focus on a multidimensional model of love. This empirical study examines
the multidimensionality and psychometrics of Passionate and Companionate love, based on an extensive study of 413 participants using
Multidimensional Love Scale (MLS). A new statistical approach employed in this study explores the typology and structure of love. The
statistical approach included the combination of Two-Step Cluster Analysis of cases and Principle Component Analysis of dimensions while
using centered variable scores. The results reveal a typology of love based on its multidimensional structure. Further analysis revealed two
main types of love: Passionate and Companionate, both containing several factors allowing for interpretation of their multidimensional structures.
The MLS subscales and detailed psychometric analysis measuring specific love dimensions are incorporated to allow further research in other
Keywords: passionate love, companionate love, psychometrics, structure
Interpersona, 2016, Vol. 10(1), 56–76, doi:10.5964/ijpr.v10i1.210
Received: 2016-02-02. Accepted: 2016-05-12. Published (VoR): 2016-06-30.
*Corresponding author at: 1607 Robinson Road, SE, Academic Building 23 E, Grand Rapids, MI, 49506. E-mail:
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited.
The definition, typology, and dimensionality of love have broadened and deepened over years of psychological
research. Researchers have made significant progress, but existing love theories and scales are still relatively
simple and do not capture love’s emotional complexity. Aron and Westbay (1996) emphasized this when they
stated that love requires a more complex model; they explained the value of knowing the multiple dimensions of
love. Over a decade later, Berscheid (2010) also noted that a demand is present for more comprehensive instru-
ments in order to measure love. This appeal was our driving force in our attempt to measure comprehensively
the complexity of love. Love is more complex than existing theories hold.
Passionate Love and Companionate Love are two of the most well-known types of love. Hatfield and Rapson
(1993) go into detail describing passionate love as an experience associated with physiological processes, pleasure,
pain, and relationship initiation. Passionate love is defined as:
A state of intense longing for union with another. Passionate love is a complex functional whole including
appraisals or appreciations, subjective feelings, expressions patterned physiological processes, action
Interpersona |An International Journal on Personal Relationships | 1981-6472
tendencies, and instrumental behaviors. Reciprocated love (union with the other) is associated with fulfill-
ment and ecstasy; unrequited love (separation) with emptiness, anxiety, or despair (Hatfield & Rapson,
1993, p. 37)
Companionate love is described as valuing intimacy, commitment, and equality (Hatfield & Rapson, 1993) and is
defined as:
…a complex functional whole including appraisals or appreciations, subjective feelings, expressions,
patterned physiological processes, action tendencies, and instrumental behaviors (Hatfield & Rapson,
1993, p. 106).
They identified Intimacy and Commitment as dimensions of Companionate love. The scales they developed were
not able to identify a dimensional structure of Passionate or Companionate Love (Hatfield & Rapson, 1993). We
believe that the structure of these types of love are more complex and can be psychometrically explored. Therefore,
our study explored the structure of these types of love in more detail providing a more comprehensive description
of these types of love.
We believe that a scientific definition of love includes both Passionate and Companionate Love as multidimensional
constructs. In this study, we followed both dimensional and typological approaches, assuming that certain dimen-
sional combinations form different types of love. To achieve this goal, we applied the Multidimensional Love Scale
(MLS) (Karandashev & Clapp, 2015), in attempts and to identify the dimensions comprising Passionate and
Companionate Love. The purpose of this article is to explore the psychometrics and structure of Passionate and
Companionate love. We will present detailed psychometrics and factor structure of Passionate and Companionate
Love as revealed by the MLS (Table 1).
We considered the following definitive features of Passionate Love: Passion, Reciprocity, Protection, Unity, and
Attraction, while definitive features of Companionate Love were: Relationship Investment, Care, Sharing, Intimacy,
and Attachment. We assumed that the dimensions revealed from the MLS would group around these features.
From a topological view, we believed that Passionate and Companionate Love are not distinctively different types
of love, but consist of the same feelings towards a partner, but in different degrees. We hypothesized that both
types of love utilize the same thirty-three dimensions presented in Table 1, but that participants varying values of
the different dimensions would determine the type of lover they are. We expected that the dimensions would relate
to each other in different combinations within Passionate and Companionate Love.
The purpose of this study was to utilize data from our previous research in order to reveal factor structure of the
(MLS). Data was analyzed using psychometrical scale analysis to identify validity and reliability, two-step cluster
analysis in order to identify typological clusters of lovers, and factor analysis to understand the composition of di-
mensional structures.
Participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 70 (M= 27.7, SD = 8.4). Of the 413 participants, 59.1% were male, 74% of
participants identified as Caucasian, 10.3% as African descent, 3.6% of Asian descent, 7% as Hispanic or Latino,
2016, Vol. 10(1), 56–76
Karandashev & Clapp 57
and 2.9% as Native American. Regarding the types of relationship, 18% reported being married, 40.4% engaged,
35.3% in committed dating relationships, and 4.6% in casual dating. Among the participants, 4.6% were in their
romantic relationship 3 months or fewer, 20.7% were 3–6 months, 34.9% were 1–2 years, 31.5% were between
2 and 10 years, and 8.4% were more than 10 years. Participants were only eligible to take the survey if they were
currently in a romantic relationship.
We used a convenience sample: participants were recruited specifically through local advertisements in Grand
Rapids, MI, as well as online through social media. A majority of participants were students, even though there
were many people from the local community and of different age groups. The survey was administered with a
secure, internet based tool. Participants were also given a small, monetary compensation for their time upon
Psychometric Properties of the MLS Scale
The MLS previously developed (Karandashev & Clapp, 2015) consisted of 266 items measuring 33 hypothesized
dimensions of romantic relationships (see Table 1). The participants rated their feeling toward a partner on the
items using a 1–5 Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The validity of the MLS
was presented extensively in our previous publication, (Karandashev & Clapp, 2015) and showed modest corre-
lation of dimensions with rating of how much “in love” a participant is with their partner. Those results supported
our theoretical assumption that there is no universal model of love. Love is a subjective feeling and can be related
to different dimensions for different people.
The Cronbach Alpha (α) for all dimensions (Table 1) were excellent, good, or acceptable ranging from .70 to .90
(with exceptions of questionable reliability of 3 dimensions) supporting the reliability of these sub-scales. To show
that each item loaded exclusively to a particular dimension, we computed bivariate correlations between item and
total scores for dimensions/scale (means) (Table 1). Only those items that had substantially high correlation to a
hypothesized sub-scale comparing to correlations with other sub-scales remained in a sub-scale. This statistical
procedure validated that each item loads only one sub-scale (see Table 1 for highest correlations). To eliminate
redundancy of items, we looked at the correlations between items within the same scale. Only one of those items
that had very high correlation to each other was kept for further analysis. In several cases, the items correlated
to two or more dimensions, but with lower correlation coefficients. This means that some items have overlapping
loadings and cannot be used exclusively for one dimension. After all these statistical analyses, only 233 items on
the MLS (out of 266) were left for further analysis. The descriptive statistics for those items are presented in Table
1. Several other types of statistical analysis were used to validate the 33 hypothesized dimensions (Karandashev
& Clapp, 2015).
2016, Vol. 10(1), 56–76
Psychometric Structure of Love 58
Table 1
Psychometrics of Multidimensional Love Scale
Items in the dimensionDimension
.83This person's lifestyle is acceptable.Acceptance
(α= 0.90)
Consenting to welcome or a willingness
to tolerate someone in a relationship
.72I accept this person for who this person is. /1.183.68
.77I respect this person's beliefs. /1.363.50
.91I like this person just the way s/he is. /1.382.89
.89I want this person to be with me. (Interest = .88, Affection = .87, Companionship = .85) /1.453.16
.76I respect this person as an individual and not an object of my desire. /1.163.75
.68Differences between this person and me (age, social status, financial status, etc.) do
not limit our relationship.
.75I can tolerate this person's interests, even if I do not like the interests. /1.163.60
.48I often dream about this person. (Attach Anxiety = .46)Admiration
(α= 0.71)
Respectful attitude towards a romantic
partner, making him/her impressive
.70I always thought this person was an amazing person. /1.153.53
.73I fall deeper in love with this person whenever I see him/her. /1.213.31
.71This person enchants me. /1.143.36
.55I want to be more like this person. /1.123.07
.69My affection towards this person is consistent despite of my mood.Affection
(α= 0.88)
Is a tender, joyful feeling of fondness
toward a romantic partner
.65I love this person more tenderly than I do anyone else. /1.213.63
.73Physical contact with this person brings me joy. /1.253.69
.88I kiss this person passionately. /1.443.03
.79The little things this person does make me smile. /1.363.45
.82I would enjoy waking up and seeing this person. /1.233.63
.78I would unconditionally love a child with this person. /1.153.62
.80I often kiss this person impulsively. /1.073.52
.45I become anxious when I am apart from this person.Attachment Anxiety
(α= 0.70)
Feelings of nervousness and
apprehension about being abandoned
by a romantic partner
.40I am afraid to die because I would not be with this person. /1.352.87
.53When I am not with this person my life is less enjoyable. /1.163.47
.62It’s painful to think about being away from this person. /1.253.03
.50I would wait for this person to be with me. /1.203.39
.59Being away from this person is unbearable. /1.182.58
.62Losing this person would make me lose interest in many things. /1.192.99
.65I cannot imagine ever leaving this person. /1.093.36
.61I wish nothing could hold me back from this person. /1.123.79
.61Kissing this person can bring me comfort.Comfort
(α= 0.90)
Feeling of physical ease and well-being
from a romantic partner
.72This person gives me feelings of security. /1.163.66
.72This person is able to comfort me. (Elation = .72, Protection = .71) /1.203.64
.69Being with this person makes me forget my troubles. (Sharing = .66) /1.163.25
.76Thoughts of this person bring me comfort. /1.173.65
.67I am overwhelmed with warmth and comfort around this person. /1.133.35
.85I find comfort in this person's arms. /1.433.20
.71Thinking about my future with this person makes me feel warm. /1.143.75
.85I feel content around this person. /1.073.57
.73I can take comfort from this person's company. /1.153.84
2016, Vol. 10(1), 56–76
Karandashev & Clapp 59
Items in the dimensionDimension
.57This person can depend on me. (Sharing = .56)Commitment
(α= 0.84)
Being pledged and dedicated to a
romantic partner
.69I am determined to make this person happy. /0.993.74
.75I would stay with this person through hard times. /0.844.09
.69I am willing to do what this person asks me to. /1.153.46
.82I want to spend my life with this person even if that life is hard. (Communion = .82) /1.243.48
.76I keep my promises to this person. (Service = .73) /1.283.49
.70If this person died I would remain committed to him/her. /1.192.53
.62My love for this person can only get stronger. /0.923.88
.52I find it hard to say goodbye to this person.Communion
(α= 0.87)
Sharing of thoughts, feelings,
possessions, and actions with a
romantic partner to unite with him/her
.55My relationship is incorporated into my identity. /1.113.33
.72I cannot wait to spend time with this person. /0.983.41
.72Even though I fight with this person, I know that we will stay together. /1.173.47
.67I am happy to become a parent with this person. /1.283.66
.82I want to spend my life with this person even if that life is hard. /1.243.47
.73I would marry this person as soon as I could. /1.243.36
.73I cannot comprehend this person leaving me. /1.063.30
.81It makes me happier to just be in a room with this person.Companionship
(α= 0.86)
A friendly association and shared
interest with romantic partner
.80It is comforting to think of always being with this person. /1.193.56
.82I enjoy this person's company. /1.313.60
.87I try to stay close with this person. /1.073.56
.75I love accompanying this person anywhere. /1.093.75
.70I am content with the expectations this person has for me.Compatibility
(α= 0.82)
Ability to exist with a romantic partner
.75I feel I fit to this person perfectly. /1.133.41
.69Being with this person feels right to me. /1.014.05
.64This person is best suited for me. (Uniqueness = .64) /1.063.91
.86I believe that this person is my match. (Acceptance = .86) /1.402.95
.68I worry about the physical well-being of this person.Concern
(α= 0.73)
Interest in protecting the health and
welfare of someone
.73I am concerned about this person's safety. /1.343.19
.73I become furious when someone hurts this person. /1.313.42
.47I become worried about this person when this person is away from me. /1.143.28
.73I am concerned when this person cries. (Intimacy = .72) /1.283.61
.42My concern for this person causes me to forget about myself. /1.102.91
.79I am willing to die to save this person's life.Devotion
(α= 0.81)
Profound dedication to a romantic
.74I would go to great lengths to please this person. /1.253.48
.76I would be happy to give this person everything. /1.253.37
.68I would sacrifice my happiness for the well-being of this person. /1.223.11
.60I would change my habits to make this person happier. /1.083.31
.69I have some very memorable kisses with this person.Elation
(α= 0.83)
A feeling of great pleasure associated
with a romantic partner
.58My favorite memories are from experiences with this person. /1.103.58
.76This person makes me laugh. /1.173.74
.65I need to express my joy from being in love with this person. /1.183.31
.80Physical contact with this person brings me joy. /1.323.49
.86I enjoy this person's kisses. (Empathy = .849) /1.473.16
.62When I am with this person my life is more enjoyable. (Comfort = .621) /0.994.00
2016, Vol. 10(1), 56–76
Psychometric Structure of Love 60
Items in the dimensionDimension
.76I feel guilty when I cause this person any pain.Empathy
(α= 0.88)
The desire to understand and share the
feelings of a romantic partner
.65If this person died I would feel as though I had died as well. /0.993.33
.73I care about this person’s pains and sufferings. (Gratitude = .735, Understanding = .727) /1.203.86
.55I feel this person's pain as if it was mine. /1.093.60
.81I want to know how this person is feeling. /1.373.44
.80I am compassionate towards this person. /1.283.62
.65When this person is hurt I become very emotional. /1.283.19
.73Seeing this person suffer causes me pain. /1.223.61
.78I want this person to be as happy as I am. /1.203.75
.82This person can cure the doubts I have about our relationship.Faith
(α= 0.87)
The ability to predict and confidently
depend on a romantic partner
.69I would be surprised if this person left me. /1.303.34
.86I know that this person cares about me. (Service = .86, Empathy = .86, Interest =.85) /1.473.22
.83I can be myself around this person. /1.073.63
.80I know what this person’s actions mean. /0.913.44
.77I believe this person will always be committed to me. /1.333.26
.74I know what to expect from this person by looking at this person's face. /1.253.34
.60I could fix any doubts this person has about me. /1.263.06
.57I do not hold grudges towards this person.Forgiveness
(α= 0.75)
To accept a romantic partner
unconditionally of their mistakes
.72Even if I argue with this person I still want to be around this person. (Longing = .72,
Affection = .72)
.64I can forget the past in order to get along with this person. /1.103.26
.75I cannot get mad at this person for long periods of time. /1.183.44
.67I can forgive any wrongs done by this person. /1.193.15
.69Forgiveness is important in my relationship with this person. /1.093.80
.87I am grateful for the time I have with this person. (Acceptance = .86, Interest = .86)Gratitude
(α= 0.85)
Being thankful and showing
appreciation to a romantic partner
.77I am grateful for everything this person and I have had together, regardless of the outcome
of our relationship. (Interest .76)
.76The things that I share with this person would be difficult to lose. /1.083.84
.68I cherish my memories with this person. /0.974.18
.55I am happy to be with this person in the present without worrying about the past or future. /0.923.81
.72The more I am with this person the more valuable our relationship is to me. /1.133.73
.77I value everything this person does for me. /1.233.66
.63This person is superior to all others of this person's gender.Idealization
(α= 0.71)
Positive perceptual alterations of the
image of a romantic partner leading to
blindness and amplification
.64I can easily find the positive aspects in this person. (Acceptance = .66, Empathy = .64,
Interest .65, Protection = .65)
.53Crazy ideas seem plausible when I am with this person. /0.983.00
.68I think this person is beautiful regardless of what others think. (Comfort = .68) /1.233.72
.55I believe everyone will love this person. /1.253.10
.64I always believe this person. /1.233.44
.56It is hard to believe that I am fortunate enough to be with this person. /1.183.00
.89I find this person attractive because of their manner.Interest
(α= 0.87)
General liking and curiosity about a
romantic partner
.82This person's physical appearance is pleasing to me. /1.263.56
.75I am curious to know what this person’s life is like. /1.193.58
.75I want to listen to this person. /0.864.04
.88I love learning new things about this person. /1.093.60
2016, Vol. 10(1), 56–76
Karandashev & Clapp 61
Items in the dimensionDimension
.77This person makes me feel privileged.Interpersonal Mattering
(α= 0.90)
Sense of self-worth as significant to a
significant other
.87If I fail, I believe this person would give me strength. /1.342.97
.75I feel that this person has given me a more meaningful life. /1.273.40
.72This person gives me strength through hard times. /1.073.77
.75This person’s acceptance of me makes my life more valuable. /1.323.30
.58This person makes me feel like I am the only one that matters. /1.193.31
.73When this person acts interested in me, I am happier. /1.263.45
.79I am very proud of this person. /1.203.58
.78My love for this person makes me a better person. /1.243.46
.73I accept being vulnerable to this person.Intimacy
(α= 0.85)
Deep, close feelings towards a romantic
.80I allow this person to know the entire truth about me. /1.342.94
.44This person and I have private information from other people. (Understanding = .43) /1.024.02
.74This person and I share our personal fears with each other. /1.153.52
.71I include this person in my personal matters. /1.043.88
.77I am able to express my feelings to this person at anytime. /1.133.39
.78I feel I can easily tell this person personal information. /1.323.47
.64I believe only this person knows me on a deeper level than others do. /1.233.26
.74Common sense evades me when this person is around.Irrationality
(α= 0.74)
Thinking and acting intuitively, without
logic and rationality, due to
preoccupation with a romantic partner
.46This person makes me think silly. /1.083.36
.50My feelings for this person lead me to make silly decisions. /0.972.16
.74I cannot focus on anything else if I think of this person. /1.222.79
.72When I am apart from this person I cannot function rationally. /1.362.56
.45I would pursue a relationship with this person even if it was bound to fail. /1.173.23
.71Reality is clouded when I am with this person. /1.122.44
.77I want to feel close with this person despite distance.Longing
(α= 0.90)
Eager desire to be closer to a
romantic partner
.75I want to be closely connected with this person. /1.173.65
.75I want this person to return to me if this person is away from me. /1.223.42
.70I want to be with this person when I die. /1.213.52
.70I will go anywhere with this person just to be together. /1.273.21
.77I want all the time I can have with this person. /1.313.31
.60I miss this person when we are apart. /0.863.92
.66I am eager to converse with this person in any circumstances. (Comfort .65) /1.193.58
.80I want a future with this person. (Sharing = .79) /1.243.57
.72I am obsessed with this person.Obsession
(α= 0.74)
Intense attraction towards a romantic
partner that continually preoccupies and
dominate one’s mind
.66It seems I cannot stop fantasizing about this person. /1.223.14
.65My emotions toward this person overwhelm me. /0.942.81
.77I feel as though I cannot take my eyes off this person. /1.263.09
.71This person is all I think about. /1.252.61
2016, Vol. 10(1), 56–76
Psychometric Structure of Love 62
Items in the dimensionDimension
.51I feel like this person is mine.Possession
(α= 0.65)
Desire to own a romantic partner or
have him/her belong to one
.53When this person is with someone else I feel like jealousy consumes me. /1.162.39
.56I cannot stand other people touching this person. (Irrationality = .60, Obsession = .55) /1.243.05
.65I do not want to think about other people loving this person. /1.203.32
.66I would feel that I would die if this person was leaving me for someone else. /1.243.06
.60I hate anything that might take this person away from me. /1.132.45
.83I would not hesitate to care for this person.Protection
(α= 0.87)
Doing something to preserve a romantic
partner’s state of well-being
.67I would never hurt this person. /1.183.60
.85When this person is upset I want to comfort him/her. (Interest = .85, Empathy = .85) /1.063.68
.73I stand up for this person to my friends. /1.353.37
.69I could never wish this person harm. /0.984.21
.82I would care for this person if this person was incapable of self-care. /1.183.55
.74I do not want to make trouble for this person. /1.183.76
.50I believe the relationship’s costs are equal between us both.Reciprocity
(α= 0.89)
Giving and receiving things with
someone for mutual benefits and
.76I think my relationship with this person is mutually beneficial. /1.103.72
.79I feel that there is a mutual trust in my relationship with this person. /1.183.49
.79I think rewards are equal for me and for this person in my relationship. /1.193.41
.68I view this person as my equal. /0.964.01
.70I believe this person loves me as much as I love this person. /0.933.94
.79I want to make this person just as happy as they make me. /1.343.46
.76Affectionate gestures are natural between me and this person. /1.313.46
.78I believe this person feels the same affection towards me as I feel towards this person. /1.193.63
.72I can rely on this person to protect me.Reliance
(α= 0.64)
The feeling of needing a romantic
partner to satisfy a one’s individual
.63I feel that I depend on this person for comfort. /1.173.28
.49I feel as though this person is all I need. (Uniqueness - .49, Crystallization = .48) /1.192.72
.63I feel the need for this person to understand me. (Empathy = .63, Service = .62) /1.283.42
.75I can always find happiness with this person. /1.213.45
.72I want to give this person the best advice.Service
(α= 0.87)
A responsibility required to be carried
out for a romantic partner
.83I want to solve this person's problems. /1.322.91
.81I want to be there to support this person. /1.243.66
.79I feel that this person deserves the best from me. /1.243.59
.77I would help this person with their work. /0.804.13
.73Giving this person what this person loves is important to me. /1.193.61
.68I try to predict what this person would want. /1.093.54
.76I want to have new experiences with this person. (Gratitude = 75)Sharing
(α= 0.87)
Having something in common between
oneself and a romantic partner
.74I enjoy planning for the future with this person. /1.343.48
.58I enjoy all of the things I do with this person. /1.123.67
.69The time I get to spend talking to this person is the best part of my day. (Comfort = .68) /1.163.61
.76I want to be with this person through good times. /1.213.65
.79I love being in a relationship with this person more than being single. /1.253.77
.72I enjoy making puns and jokes with this person. /1.093.89
.70Having children with this person would bring more meaning to my relationship with this
.74I do not mind being vulnerable to this person. (Intimacy = .74)Trust
(α= 0.77)
Ability to confide in a romantic partner
.60I believe this person regardless of anything. /1.143.21
.78I have complete trust in this person. /1.203.63
.53I can ask this person for help at any moment. (Comfort -= .53) /1.023.99
.75In times of uncertainty I can trust this person. /1.193.73
.76I trust this person enough to express my feelings. /1.283.55
2016, Vol. 10(1), 56–76
Karandashev & Clapp 63
Items in the dimensionDimension
.57I know what is on this person's mind.Understanding
(α= 0.86)
Sympathetically comprehension of a
romantic partner
.66I want to know what is happening in this person's life. /0.814.10
.78I can recognize when this person is distressed. /1.213.64
.76I can recognize this person by this person's voice. /1.193.86
.77I think about how this person feels. /1.163.76
.68I am able to understand what this person is thinking. /1.113.52
.75I understand things about this person without this person having to tell me. /1.253.35
.71I understand what this person’s actions mean. /1.083.50
.60I do not need anyone else other than this person to meet my needs.Uniqueness
(α= 0.67)
Perception of a romantic partner as
being particularly remarkable from
.65Every moment I experience with this person is perfect. /1.002.31
.65I do not find anyone else as attractive as this person. /1.283.19
.73I believe this person is the only one for me. /1.223.32
.63My relationship with this person is more important than my relationship with other people. /1.153.44
.60I have never seen anyone as beautiful as this person. /1.313.17
.73I want this person sexually.Yearning
(α= 0.82)
A feeling of intense desire to be
physically closer to a romantic partner
.56I would face danger to be with this person. (Devotion = .55) /0.883.88
.63I am in love with this person's body. /0.913.80
.67I crave kisses from this person. /0.933.85
.46Knowing that this person is near causes me to fantasize about this person. /1.213.19
.65It is difficult to resist physical contact with this person. /0.943.79
.72When I kiss this person my heart beats harder. /1.103.49
aThis column presents correlations between item and total score for dimension.
Data Analysis
The purpose of this study was to analyze the dimensional structure of the MLS, to identify the diversity of dimensions
comprising love, and to explore how these dimensions fit into the concepts of Passionate and Companionate love.
We were interested in the identification of factor structure of these dimensions. We believed, however, that factor
structure might be different for different categories of participants. Therefore, the cluster analysis of participants
preceded factor analysis.
In this article, we provide further psychometric analysis of the MLS and present the full scale. Traditional psycho-
metric methods did not fit to the analysis of multidimensional scale that we developed. Principle Component
Analysis is not capable to identify thirty-three dimensions that we hypothesized. Therefore, we used a variation
of traditional methods. We analyzed the psychometrics of each item of the MLS using Cronbach Alpha (α) for re-
liability and correlation of each item to the composite score for the corresponding sub-scale as evidence of the
validity for the item.
In order to reveal the typology of love as typical combinations of love dimensions, we used Two-Step Cluster
analysis and identified two clusters of participants; those who scored high in love and low in love. Yet, we were
interested in typology as typical combinations of love dimensions. To focus more on typology, we centered the
scores to eliminate the influence of high and low ratings. We used Two-Step Cluster analysis with centered data
and revealed two clusters of love that we called Passionate and Companionate Love. We ranked the dimensions
from highest to lowest within each cluster and computed Spearman correlation between the ranks to identify
whether Passionate and Companionate Love are distinctively different types of love. Creating a typology of love,
2016, Vol. 10(1), 56–76
Psychometric Structure of Love 64
we were less interested in the degree of love feelings rated by participants, but rather in combinations of dimensions
formed. We believed that the structure of love depends on the type of love identified its multidimensional structure.
We applied Principle Component Analysis separately to cases of Passionate Lovers and Companionate Lovers
to identify the multidimensional structure as well as to verify that these types of love were qualitatively different
from each other.
Further, we explored participants’ characteristics that contributed to their cluster assignment to either Passionate
or Companionate Love. Linear Regression Analysis was used in this case to reveal typical characteristics of
Passionate and Companionate Lovers.
Two Types of Love
Two-Step Cluster Analysis (Schwarz’s Bayesian Criterion) with centered data was able to reveal two distinct
clusters of good quality (~0.4 Silhouette measure of cohesion and separation): cluster one - 259 participants (216
male, mean age 26) and cluster two -154 participants (124 female, mean age 30). The cluster solutions with 3,
4, and 5 cluster memberships were of poor quality.
Cluster one is characterized predominantly by passionate dimensions including Yearning, Admiration, Gratitude,
and Reciprocity, whereas cluster two is characterized predominantly by companionate dimensions including
Companionship, Service, Protection, and Interest. Although there is certain overlapping of dimensions salient for
both clusters, the first cluster describes predominantly passionate love feelings while cluster two describes com-
panionate love feelings. This means that these two types of love are distinctive from each other, but still with much
in common. Based on the dimensions that characterized each cluster, we called Cluster 1 as Passionate Love,
and Cluster 2 as Companionate Love.
To verify how different the representation of the dimensions in each cluster was, we ranked the dimensions from
highest to lowest within each cluster and computed Spearman correlation between the ranks. There was almost
no correlation (r= -0.011) which suggests that Passionate and Companionate Love are significantly different types
of love.
We then performed Principle Component Analysis (PCA) on each cluster of participants and revealed two factor
structures presented in Passionate Love (Table 2), and Companionate Love (Table 3). These factor structures
brought different configurations of dimensions within factors and different qualitative descriptors of each type of
love. Passionate love is composed of 12 factors while Companionate love is composed of 10 (Figures 1 and 2).
Factors within Passionate love also display several inverse relationships among dimensions, while Companionate
love appears generally harmonious. The rankings of participants scores of these dimensions, along with the factor
analysis composed of each cluster provided the information needed to interpret each cluster. The interpretation
of these relationships will be discussed further.
2016, Vol. 10(1), 56–76
Karandashev & Clapp 65
Table 2
Cluster 1 Factor Analysis
Longing .082-.077.039-.071-.093-.199-.061.153-.140-.003-.009.760
Irrationality .122-.288.000.028-.004-.080-.
Obsession .184-.088.167-.004.023-.140-.051.326-.033-.074-.126.686-
Interpersonal Mattering .355-.154.237-.015-.073.232-.
Sharing .075-.159-.415.137.061-.
Companion .040-.159-.128-.154.191-.010.048-.008.134.019-.678-.161
Interest .071-.127-.
Comfort .241.320-.212-.118.165-.117.030-.018-.315.067-.562.016-
Reciprocity .058-.085.141.084-.152-.032.013-.079.024-.780.094.040-
Concern .038-.086-.190.128-.155-.151-.112.146.132-.740-.040.152-
Trust .098-.329-.037-.149-.033-.069-.
Uniqueness .081-.164-.065.061-.
Compatibility .
Admiration .
Idealization .008.022.074-.007-.
Devotion .270-.039.249-.
Reliance .349.215-.084.043-.375-.301-.004-.452-.105-.206.092-.092-
Forgiveness .043-.100.136-.154-.062.114-.772-.103.089-.095-.191.071
Intimacy .080-.106-.122-.176-.088.130-.661.106.087-.222-.007-.226
Acceptance .005.308-.195-.133.095-.027-.601-.112-.117.031.335-.208
Commitment .019-.013.034-.061.082-.768.102-.125.223-.005.139.001-
Communion .103-.127-.064.058-.001-.757.117.130-.
Understanding .
Empathy .005.023-.136-.009-.694.130-.309.024-.122-.036-.053-.216
Attachment Anxiety .
Service .
Protection .
Possession .
Gratitude .088-.054.781.
Affect .046.205.497-.207.160.007-.125.008.388-.028-.183-.140
Yearning .088-.797.053-.005.024.089-.064-.063.034-.054.006.104-
Faith .320-.369-.031-.282-.177.236-.014-.211.314-.150.096-.101
Elation .817.053-.146-.045.142.109-.008-.011.024-.101-.085.042
Note. Boldface indicates highest factor loadings.
2016, Vol. 10(1), 56–76
Psychometric Structure of Love 66
Table 3
Cluster 2 Factor Analysis
Empathy .311-.084-.
Service .080.057-.211.288-.063.092-.138.021.036-.702
Concern .149-.157.126.117-.178-.081-.050-.070-.323-.658
Uniqueness .019-.208-.093-.224-.264-.122-.252.097-.231-.636-
Compatibility .142-.102.041-.028.159-.062-.
Reciprocity .138-.101.038.146-.178.044.003-.068.747.167-
Interpersonal Mattering .160.171-.266-.098.185-.269-.047-.035.702.076
Possession .005-.246-.146.237.011-.134-.067-.270-.598-.224
Trust .379-.068.087.295-.291.005.007-.160-.592.117-
Comfort .253.008-.
Acceptance .092-.349.074-.164-.
Interest .103-.046-.210-.314-.183.177.168-.632.011.109
Companion .152.065-.117.326.153-.205.233-.621.056.169-
Gratitude .260.075-.190.116-.158.116.101-.558.047.309
Protection .021.195.321.185-.098-.403-.035-.526.022.197
Devotion .036-.030-.033.145-.152-.114-.775.203-.058-.215
Commitment .
Communion .
Obsession .025-.030.219-.001.140-.026.531-.355-.491-.003-
Irrationality .007-.033-.005.273-.290-.057-.487-.322-.469-.224
Elation .088.156-.
Affection .073-.
Yearning .006-.090.214-.064-.120-.734.289-.064-.034-.029
Intimacy .232-.007-.082.024-.771.
Understanding .
Faith .
Longing .241.143-.049-.758.047-.143.163.082-.028-.098-
Anxiety .141-.008-.003.670.272-.160-.068.283-.186-.079-
Admiration .039-.029.662-.136.145-.121.117-.063.145.224-
Idealization .138-.064-.649-.176-.124-.198-.008.181-.045-.313-
Reliance .029-.730-.265.108.133-.254-.037-.192-.062.196-
Forgiveness .035.688.276.034-.015-.239-.042-.024-.153.120-
Sharing .794.
Note. Boldface indicates highest factor loadings.
Differences Between the Two Types of Lovers
A total of 259 participants were assigned in Passionate Love Cluster: the mean age was 26 years, 216 of those
were males. In Passionate Love, 12 participants reported as being in casual dating, 70 in committed dating, 161
were engaged, 12 were married, and 4 identified as being in a other type of relationship not listed. For reported
relationship duration in Passionate Love, 2 participants reported being in relationships one month or less, 7 in
relationships one to three months, 11 in relationships three to six months, 53 in relationships six months to one
2016, Vol. 10(1), 56–76
Karandashev & Clapp 67
year, 119 in relationships one to two years, 61 in relationships more than two years, 4 more than five years, and
2 more than ten years.
A total of 154 participants were assigned in Companionate Love Cluster: the mean age was 30 years, 124 of
those were females. In Companionate Love, 7 participants reported as being in casual dating, 76 in committed
dating, 7 were engaged, 61 were married, and 3 identified as being in a other type of relationship not listed. For
reported relationship duration in Companionate Love, 3 participants reported being in relationships one month or
less, 7 in relationships one to three months, 3 in relationships three to six months, 18 in relationships six months
to one year, 26 in relationships one to two years, 43 in relationships more than two years, 23 more than five years,
and 31 more than ten years. Companionate Lovers reported being higher in love with their partner (M = 3.62),
than Passionate Lovers (M = 3.12).
To identify the contributing factors that distinguish Passionate and Companionate Lovers, we ran linear regression
analysis. The overall regression including eight predictors was statistically significant, R= .75, R2= .56, Adjusted
R2= .55, F(6, 323) =86.68, p< .01. Passionate or Companionate cluster membership could be predicted quite
well from this set of eight variables with approximately 56% variance in cluster membership accounted for by the
regression. To assess the contribution of individual predictors, the tratio for the individual regression slopes were
examined. Six of the eight predictors were significantly predictive of cluster memberships; these include age,
t(323) = 2.96, p< .01, gender, t(323) = -10.97, p< .01, how religious, t(323) = 8.74, p< .01, relationship type,
t(323) = -1.79, p< .01, relationship duration, t(323) = 2.53, p< .01, and how much in love, t(323) = 4.03, p< .01.
The predictive equation for cluster membership was as follows:
Cluster Membership = .11 × age -.41 × gender +.33 × religiosity - .07 × relationship type +.11 × relationship
duration + .15 × in love.
This means that older people and those in longer relationships tend to be more companionate in their love. Those
who identified as being more religious tend to fit more with Companionate love than Passionate love. Companionate
love also is more typical for women than for men.
The participants’ rating of dimensions in Companionate love cluster is distributed more evenly, and is on average
higher than in the Passionate love cluster. This means that Companionate love is more harmonic than Passionate
love and better balanced between dimensions. Despite a popular belief that Passionate love is more intensive, it
is intensive only in some dimensions. In particular, Yearning,Admiration,Reciprocity, and Gratitude rank much
higher than many other dimensions and very well explain the key characteristics of Passionate love. In support
of these observations, Figures 1 and 2show the same type of profiles for Passionate and Companionate love
based on the composite scores for 12 factors in Cluster 1, and 10 factors in Cluster 2. The most salient factors in
Passionate love are Passion,Unity, and Reciprocity, and in Companionate love Relationship Investment,Intimacy,
and Fondness. And still the dimensions within factors in Passionate and Companionate love are grouped differ-
ently around factors, resulting in different names for factors within each cluster not totally comparable to each
other. This means that Passionate and Companionate love hold different qualitative characteristics from one an-
2016, Vol. 10(1), 56–76
Psychometric Structure of Love 68
Figure 1. Factors within Passionate Love.
Figure 2. Factors within Companionate Love.
2016, Vol. 10(1), 56–76
Karandashev & Clapp 69
As the Spearman correlation showed, there was little correlation between Passionate and Companionate Love,
concluding that both types of love are independent of each other, despite sharing the same dimensions. While
both types of love are comprised of the same dimensions, the relationship between the dimensions and their
salience shapes the multidimensional structure within both Passionate and Companionate Love, making each
one unique from the other. The PCA revealed that these dimensions formed 12 factors within Passionate Love
and 10 factors in Companionate love.
Passionate Love
The factor structure revealed by the PCA for Passionate love (Table 2) included Attraction, Partnership, Mutuality,
Suitability, Fascination, Closeness, Unity, Relationship Maintenance, Responsibility, Satisfaction, Passion, and
Elation. Based on the definitions and results, these factors appear to fit with Hatfield and Rapson’s (1993) work
on Passionate love.
The factor of Attraction shows two opposite aspects, one being irrational and the other rational. Longing and In-
terpersonal Mattering depict desires to be closer to a partner and gaining a feeling of self-worth. This aspect fits
well to the definition of passionate love as a desire for union (Hatfield & Rapson, 1993). On the other hand, Irra-
tionality and Obsession show that passionate attraction can be intuitive, illogical, and have a strong influence over
a person’s mind. These two aspects share an inverse relationship with each other, meaning that when one is
experienced, the other must not be. While mean scores for Irrationality and Obsession are higher than for Longing
and Interpersonal Mattering for Passionate Love, factor analysis showed that Irrationality and Obsession nega-
tively loaded, making it unclear which aspect is preferred by Passionate Lovers. This means, that Lovers who are
high in Longing and Interpersonal Mattering, are not irrational or obsessive. In other words, lovers with high feelings
of Irrationality and Obsession cannot experience intensive Longing and Interpersonal Mattering.
The factor of Partnership depicts two aspects, an emphasis on romantic and less accent on friendship compan-
ionships. In romantic companionship Sharing and Comfort depict feelings of ease associated with an intimate re-
lationship. Passionate Love focuses less on the friendship aspect of companionship, depicted by Interest and
Companionship (in terms of camaraderie), a general liking of someone that is similar and is associated with this
person. Due to the inverse relationship of friendship and romantic companionship, Passionate Lovers cannot
combine these two different aspects of Companionship. Romantic companionship overrides friendship feelings
in Passionate Lovers.
In the factor of Mutuality, Reciprocity and Trust depict mutually beneficial aspects of a relationship as the ability
to confide in a partner and expect equality in a relationship. Passionate Love takes less emphasis on the caretaking
aspect, depicted by a lack of Concern, disinterest in protecting the well-being of their partner. The inverse relation-
ship of mutually beneficial aspects with the caretaking can be interpreted that a Passionate Lover is more inter-
ested in their relationship than in their partner’s interests.
The factor of Suitability is comprised of two dimensions, Compatibility and Uniqueness, the ability to fit appropri-
ately with someone that is perceived as special, unique, and better than others. This means that a Passionate
Lover’s perception of a partner determines a person’s feelings of compatibility. Consequently, feelings of compat-
2016, Vol. 10(1), 56–76
Psychometric Structure of Love 70
ibility consist of attraction based on physical or personality-type characteristics of a potential partner. In theory,
this could lead to irrational, imaginative perceptions of someone being an exclusively compatible partner.
The factor of Fascination depicts two different aspects, partner-focused and a lack of emphasis on partner-depen-
dent. Admiration and Devotion are partner-focused dimensions and depict a dedicated and respectful attitude
towards a partner. Passionate Lovers places less emphasis on the partner-dependent aspect, depicted by a lack
of Idealization and Reliance, less feelings of needing a partner and noticing imperfections. Due to the higher values
of admiration and devotion compared to idealization and reliance, we interpret that Passionate Lovers may have
a preference to partner-focused feelings, and prefer not to admit their reliance on their partner.
The factor of Closeness depicts aspects with an emphasis on feeling-focused and less accent on action-focused.
Intimacy is the dimension comprising feeling-focused, depicted as close feelings towards a partner. Passionate
Lovers carry less emphasis on the action-focused aspect, depicted by a lack of Forgiveness and Acceptance,
intolerance towards someone in a relationship with sensitivity to their mistakes and lack of willingness to forgive.
In Passionate Love, vulnerability accompanies Intimacy and allows a partner to hurt a Passionate Lover. Passionate
Lovers are not always as likely to accept and unconditionally forgive a partner if they are intimate, because of this
vulnerability. Additionally, as relationships develop, partners must be able to forgive each other in order to grow
more intimate. There was no clear preference on either action-focused or feeling-focused aspects for Passionate
Communion and Commitment comprise the factor of Unity, depicted as willingness to share thoughts, feelings,
possessions, and actions, and pledge to their partner. This implies that Passionate Lovers find themselves syn-
chronized with their partner, and choose to dedicate themselves in attempts to unite with each other.
The factor of Relationship Maintenance depicts two different aspects, emphasis on relationship growth and less
accent on relationship preservation. Relationship growth, the more preferred by Passionate Lovers, consists of
Understanding and Empathy, depicted as a sympathetic comprehension and the desire to share the feelings with
a partner. Less emphasis on Attachment Anxiety represents less concern about relationship preservation, less
feelings of nervousness and apprehension about abandonment by a partner. Comprehending and understanding
of a partner and sharing feelings with him/her is difficult to achieve when feelings of abandonment is present. This
may cause relationship growth to stagnate.
The factor of Responsibility depicts two aspects, cherishing and a lack of possessiveness. The first, and more
valued, is the aspect of cherishing, which is comprised of Protection and Service, depicted by responsibility to a
partner and preserving their well-being. Passionate Lovers do not generally have feelings of Possession, a desire
to own a partner. Passionate Lovers seeks to preserve and serve their partner and do not attempt to be possessive
or control him/her.
Satisfaction, a factor comprised of an inverse relationship between Affection, tender, joyful feelings of fondness
toward a partner, and Gratitude, being thankful and showing appreciation. The inverse relationship between affection
and gratitude comes from needs of the Passionate Lover: when the needs are present, affection is used, and
when needs are met, they are grateful. When a Passionate Lover wants something from their partner (sex, attention,
etc.) the affectionate behavior becomes an implicit method to fulfill these needs. Gratitude likely occurs after needs
have been met.
2016, Vol. 10(1), 56–76
Karandashev & Clapp 71
The factor of Passion depicts two aspects, Yearning, feelings of intense desire to be physically closer to a partner,
and less accent on Faith, the ability to predict and confidently depend on a partner. The inverse relationship between
Yearning and Faith is likely due to Passionate Lovers feelings of Yearning making them blind to their Faith in a
partner, and therefore putting less value on it.
The final factor, Elation, joyful feelings associated with a partner stands alone. Elation is not dependent on any
specific factors, dimensions, or composites. This could mean that joyful feelings are salient, and not connected
with other dimensions.
Companionate Love
Hatfield and Rapson (1993) identified Intimacy and Commitment as dimensions of Companionate love. In our
study, Companionate love formed the following factors: Care, Equality, Relationship Investment, Unity, Harmony,
Fondness, Attachment, Amplification, Autonomy, and Sharing. The same 33 dimensions that comprised Passionate
Love structure also comprise Companionate Love, but as stated earlier, the dimensions group together in different
structures, consequently forming a different type of love. These factors all appear to align with Hatfield and Rapson’s
(1993) findings and definitions of this type of love.
The factor of Care depicts two aspects, high value of service and less accent on suitability. Concern,Empathy,
and Service comprise the aspect of service, depicted as an interest in protecting welfare of, understanding the
feelings of, and responsibilities carried out for a partner. This aspect is more valued than suitability. Suitability,
which is less important to Companionate Love, the participants showed less concern for Compatibility and
Uniqueness, the ability to exist with a partner peacefully who is found particularly remarkable from others. As
discussed in Passionate Love, Compatibility and Uniqueness (suitability) can show a tendency to a fantastical
perception of their partner in relationships, perceiving their partner as remarkable and able to maintain a relationship
with him/her. On the other hand, Companionate Lovers show less value of suitability and a higher tendency to
value care aspects of their relationship, where they can serve their partner, watch for their well-being, and share
in their feelings. The lack of accent on suitability may be due to Companionate Lover’s matured state not needing
suitability to establish a relationship with a partner, because the relationship likely has been maintained for a sig-
nificant period of time.
The factor of Equality depicts the aspects of reciprocity and a lack of possessiveness. The reciprocal aspect is
comprised of feelings of Interpersonal Mattering,Comfort,Trust, and Reciprocity, and described as self-worth as
significant to a partner, sense of physical ease, the ability to confide in, and the giving and receiving with someone
for mutual benefits. On the other hand, Companionate Lovers do not have feelings of Possession, which is a lack
of desire to own a partner, representing inequality in a relationship. Similar to Passionate Lovers, the tendency
exists for Companionate Lovers to seek Reciprocity and Trust for a relationship bearing mutual benefits. Additional
differences are that to Companionate Lovers, this reciprocal aspect also includes Comfort and Interpersonal
Mattering, involving the experience of feelings of ease and self-worth. Another major difference, whereas Passionate
Lovers tend to value mutually beneficial relationships, Companionate Lovers value mutually beneficial relationships
over possessiveness, which represents a selfless relationship.
The factor of Relationship Investment is comprised of Interest, Acceptance,Companionship,Gratitude, and Pro-
tection, and is described as the willingness to invest into the success of a romantic relationship through the gen-
eral liking of a partner, a welcoming of him/her, friendly associating, being thankful, and preserving a partner’s
2016, Vol. 10(1), 56–76
Psychometric Structure of Love 72
state of well-being. All five of these dimensions combine to form the most valued factor in Companionate Love
(Figure 2). Due to the high value placed on these dimensions, they are interpreted as defining dimensions for
Companionate Lovers.
The factor of Unity consists of aspects of fellowship and a lack of preoccupation with their partner. The fellowship
aspect includes Commitment,Communion, and Devotion, described as being pledged and dedicated to a partner
and the sharing of thoughts, feelings, possessions, and actions with him/her. Companionate Lovers are not
overwhelmed by Irrationality or Obsession, acting rationality, driven by attraction towards a partner that is less
intense than Obsession. Interpretation of this factor depicts the same dimensions as unity, but with some differences
from Passionate Love. Like in Passionate Love, Commitment and Communion are paired together as unity, but
this factor portrays its lack of Obsession and Irrationality. Additionally, Companionate Lovers include Devotion to
form fellowship. As shown by their higher value, the preferred dimensions depict fellowship: a very desirable rela-
tionship to most.
The factor of Harmony consists of Faith, Intimacy, and Understanding, the ability to confidently depend on a
partner, close feelings towards him/her, and sympathetic comprehension of him/her. To Passionate Lovers, Inti-
macy, being related to Acceptance and Forgiveness represent Closeness. While to Companionate Lovers, Intimacy,
being related with Faith and Understanding represents Harmony as a more mature feeling of intimacy. Harmony
is a synchronization with a partner, depicted as knowing what a partner is going to do, sympathizing with a partner,
and feeling truly intimate with him/her.
The factor of Fondness consists of Affection,Elation, and Yearning, depicted as tender, joyful feelings of great
pleasure towards a partner and intense desire to be physically closer with him/her. While in Passionate Love, Af-
fection appears as a representation of relationship in early development; when contrasted with Gratitude what
appears to be a reaction to needing to have needs met. In Companionate Love, Affection,Elation, and Yearning
combine to represent Fondness, as an advanced and more mature feeling of Affection compared to Passionate
The factor of Attachment consists of Attachment Anxiety and Longing, feelings of nervousness about being
abandoned by a partner and an eager desire to be closer to a partner. To Passionate Lovers, Longing is related
to Interpersonal Mattering, and depicted the desire for reassurance of a person’s mattering through Longing to a
partner. To Companionate Lovers, Longing and Attachment Anxiety were rated relatively low, meaning that
Companionate Lovers do not experience these feelings as intensely as Passionate Lovers, likely because they
are already together and have been for an extended period of time. Longing and Attachment Anxiety are in the
same factor because Longing represents the feelings of insecurity that accompany an attachment in the case of
being abandoned.
The factor of Amplification consists of Admiration and Idealization, a respectful attitude towards a partner as im-
pressive, and magnification of the image of a partner. These two dimensions both carry low value (Figure 2) for
Companionate Lovers. Admiration and Idealization as Amplification would represent idealistic perceptions of a
partner that are likely exaggerated. In the case of Companionate Love, the negative loading of both Admiration
and Idealization can be interpreted as a tendency of Companionate Lovers to prefer a realistic respect rather than
an idealized admiration.
2016, Vol. 10(1), 56–76
Karandashev & Clapp 73
The factor of Autonomy consists of two aspects, Forgiveness, accepting a partner unconditionally, and Reliance,
needing a partner to satisfy needs. Autonomy is depicted as a lack of Reliance on a partner, and resulting in
Forgiveness. In Companionate Love, people feel autonomous, while also connected with their partner in a less
dependent manner. This gives Companionate Lovers the ability function independently from each other, but still
benefit from mutual exchange.
Sharing, having connected interests and other things between oneself and a partner, comprises the remaining
factor and represents the most salient characteristic of Companionate Love. Companionate Lovers have a lot in
common after extended time spent together. This factor-dimension relates to many others, but stands alone.
The interpretation of Passionate and Companionate Love presented above admit topological interpretation. That
means that they consist of the same, not different feelings, but these feelings are structured differently and repre-
sented in different degrees.
Comparing Passionate and Companionate Lovers
The regression analysis revealed many different characteristics of lovers related to gender, age, relationship type,
duration, and how in love participants were. These different characteristics acted as predictors for participants’
assignment into Passionate or Companionate Love.
Males prefer to be engaged in Passionate Love to Companionate Love. Passionate Lovers are typically younger,
and the duration of their relationships are generally shorter (two years or less) and were in dating relationships
and engagement. Females prefer Companionate Love to Passionate Love. Companionate Lovers are generally
older than Passionate Lovers; most stated their relationships had been maintained for over two years, and state
being in engaged or married. Additionally, Companionate Lovers are more in love with their partner than Passionate
Lovers are, as well as more religious.
Companionate Love looks more harmonious in terms of balance in ratings of various dimensions. Companionate
Lovers are more multidimensional in their feelings than Passionate Lovers, who tend to focus on a few dimensions
rather than the full spectrum of the multidimensional structure.
These findings are in accord with previous findings of Hatfield, Rapson, and their colleagues regarding the psy-
chological nature of Passionate and Companionate Love. They maintain that Passionate love should exist primar-
ily in the initiation of a relationship. Companionate love should remain stable and develop throughout a relationship.
Their findings were that Passionate love generally exists in relationship initiations but dwindles over time. In par-
ticular, Hatfield, Nerenz, Greenberger, Lambert, and Sprecher (1982) further studied Passionate and Companionate
love through interviews with newlywed couples and found that women tended to have more companionate rela-
tionships. No significant difference exists between the passionate love of men and women. For men and women,
time decays the intensity of both Companionate and Passionate loves. Our research substantially extends these
observations regarding descriptive characteristics about these types of love.
Passionate and Companionate Love have been extensively researched for many years. This study advanced the
interpretation of these two constructs through identification of 33 dimensions of love. These findings illuminate a
more sophisticated structure of love than previous work. Building off previous research, the structure revealed by
the MLS has provided a comprehensive and entirely measurable set of dimensions for a romantic love.
2016, Vol. 10(1), 56–76
Psychometric Structure of Love 74
In addition to revealing the valid and reliable dimensions, the structure and typology of love came to light. The
factor structures act as a road map through the complex facets of a romantic relationship. The MLS is a mosaic
instrument with the capability to measure love’s complexities. However, the scale does not need to be used as a
whole instrument; subscales of the MLS can allow researchers to build their own instruments from its subscales.
MLS is the comprehensive set of subscales, which can be used flexibly to various tasks of love research to study
models of love that people have.
The further study of love with the MLS in longitudinal studies could reveal tendencies, patterns, and more defining
characteristics of both Passionate and Companionate Lovers, as this could be a view of love over the course of
a given period of time and how it changes and shifts. The study of sub-typologies of dimensional structures will
be an interesting further direction of research that extends the existing models of love.
Conclusion: What is Love?
With this knowledge at hand now, the question still begs…What is Love? As decades of research, philosophy,
and culture have shown, the answer is nothing short of complex. However, building on the work that already exists
on Passionate and Companionate love, we presented comprehensive descriptions of Passionate and Compan-
ionate Love in terms of dimensions and factors contributing to them.
In this research we brought many new dimensions in the arena of love research and proposed psychometrically
solid scales for their measurements in the Multidimensional Love Scale (MLS). Many of these constructs are le-
gitimate love feelings, but have not been studied in the context of love research until now. Love is a social construct
and different people may experience certain combinations of these feelings in their love to a partner. There is no
one universal definition of love, but multiple. Different cultures and different people create their own understanding
of love. Love is defined by a person or culture in terms of a combination of various dimensions. Yet, there are ty-
pologies of love: Passionate and Companionate Love are among the most popular. They were confirmed in our
empirical study and extended in their descriptions, contributing factors, and variables.
Passionate Love is driven by passion, sexual desire, and needs satisfaction. Passionate Love is likely experienced
in the early stages of a romantic relationship. Passionate Love relationships try to grow, but may still struggle to
preserve themselves. Preferred by males, Passionate Love can appear irrational as Passionate Lovers strive to
be closer to their partners, sometimes despite the consequences. Passionate Lovers emphasize partnership, with
a deepened sense of unity and synchronization with a partner as compared to friendship. Relationships with mu-
tual benefits over selfless caretaking are preferred. Passionate Lovers hold themselves responsible to protect
and serve their partner, not to possess him/her. Passionate Lovers seek partners they perceive as special and
remarkable, and believe them to be compatible based on their perception. Passionate love can mature into com-
panionate love as the relationship progresses.
Companionate love represents a partner’s mature and long-term devotion to their partner; rather than satisfaction
of needs, companionate love is selfless, caring for and treating the partner as an extension of their self. Compan-
ionate Love is preferred by females. Companionate Lovers are generally invested into their relationship, accepting
their partner with gratitude and seeking to serve him/her and know him/her better. Obsession and Irrationality are
less common among Companionate Lovers, as their unity and harmony with their partner generally appears ratio-
nally, and their attachments to their partners are generally secure. Feelings of joy and sexual desire exist in re-
2016, Vol. 10(1), 56–76
Karandashev & Clapp 75
spectful forms through affection and fondness. Companionate Lovers place a higher emphasis on care and service
to their partner rather than on their suitability to their partner. Equality is sought after over any feelings of posses-
siveness of the partner, and amplification of a partner is not typical for Companionate Love. Lastly, an emphasis
is placed on sharing and connectedness between partners in Companionate Love, but Companionate Lovers
may still maintain autonomy, forgive their partner for their errors, and exist peacefully and independently in their
romantic relationship.
Therefore, to answer the timeless question of what is love: Love is a complex phenomenon comprised of at least
33 dimensions experienced by two individuals who connect with each other; this phenomenon divides into Com-
panionate and Passionate Love, which are related to each other in a topological structure.
The new statistical approach which we employed in this study to identify the typology and structure of love, has
demonstrated its advantages. It included the combination Two-Step Cluster Analysis of cases and Principle
Component Analysis of dimensions while also using centered variable scores. This approach showed promising
productiveness when used in the methodology of typological analysis.
The authors have no funding to report.
Competing Interests
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
The authors have no support to report.
Aron, A., & Westbay, L. (1996). Dimensions of the prototype of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3),
535-551. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.535
Berscheid, E. (2010). Love in the fourth dimension. Annual Review of Psychology, 61(1), 1-25.
Hatfield, E., Nerenz, D., Greenberger, D., Lambert, P., & Sprecher, S. (1982). Passionate and companionate love in newlywed
couples (Unpublished manuscript). University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA. Retrieved from
Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R. L. (1993). Love, sex, and intimacy: Their psychology, biology, and history. New York, NY, USA:
Karandashev, V., & Clapp, S. (2015). Multidimensional architecture of love: From romantic narratives to psychometrics. Journal
of Psycholinguistic Research, 44(6), 675-699. doi:10.1007/s10936-014-9311-9
PsychOpen is a publishing service by Leibniz Institute
for Psychology Information (ZPID), Trier, Germany.
2016, Vol. 10(1), 56–76
Psychometric Structure of Love 76
... No estudo de Rizzon, Mosmann, e Wagner (2013), decisão/compromisso foi o componente de maior destaque, mesmo diante da carência de intimidade e paixão. Um dos aspectos que tem sido relacionado a níveis mais altos de compromisso conjugal é a religiosidade, em geral (Karandashev & Clapp, 2016;Olson, Goddard, & Marshall, 2013). ...
... Perante tal conceituação, os dois construtos se assemelham aos que têm a mesma denominação na teoria de R. J. Sternberg (1986). Entre os principais atributos do amor companheiro, estão: investimento no relacionamento, maior nível de religiosidade e carinho (Karandashev & Clapp, 2016). Quando o possuem, os parceiros gostam muito de estar juntos, se respeitam, mas não, obrigatoriamente, sentem atração sexual mútua (Acevedo & Aron, 2009 Fehr (1988), os conceitos de amor companheiro e de compromisso se sobrepõem muito, pois demonstrar compromisso também inclui aspectos afetivos. ...
... Observa-se nas narrativas dos entrevistados uma ênfase no compartilhar e na conexão, coexistindo com a convivência pacífica e autônoma, sem necessariamente haver forte atração sexual (Acevedo & Aron, 2009;Karandashev & Clapp, 2016). Isso sugere não apenas a presença do amor companheiro nesses casamentos, como também que esse tipo de amor pode mantê-los agradáveis ainda que o amor apaixonado acabe (Sprecher & Hatfield, 2017). ...
O presente estudo, parte de uma investigação mais ampla sobre o recasamento com o excônjuge, teve por objetivo compreender como a expressão do amor, a partir dos componentes da teoria triangular do amor, contribui para a reconstrução desse tipo de relacionamento. Realizou-se uma pesquisa qualitativa, na qual foram entrevistados 12 sujeitos independentes, de camadas médias da população do Rio de Janeiro, heterossexuais, casados com o ex-cônjuge, com pelo menos um filho em comum. Para análise dos resultados utilizou-se o método de análise de conteúdo, sendo discutida a categoria atributos do amor e suas subcategorias: intimidade, paixão e decisão/compromisso. Constatou-se uma proteção natural ao relacionamento por meio dos atributos dos componentes intimidade e decisão/compromisso, formando o amor companheiro, reforçado por doação genuína.
... Love status refers to "falling in love", which is not an easy concept to define. Passionate love is perhaps the closest concept to "falling in love" (Hatfield, 1988;Karandashev & Clapp, 2016). Previous work has shown that "lovers wear rose colored glasses" (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1988). ...
Full-text available
The main goal of this investigation is to examine the psychometric characteristics of the Satisfaction with Love Life Scale (SWLLS) among Palestinian college students. This scale assesses a person’s global evaluation of love satisfaction. The factorial structure, the reliability, and validity of this measure were examined. The sample included 201 college students aged 18-26 years. Confirmatory factor analysis of the SWLLS confirmed a single underlying dimension among Palestinian college students. The SWLLS evidenced satisfactory psychometric properties, with good internal consistency. Furthermore, corroboration of validity was also evidenced by means of the relationships between SWLLS score, and love status, love styles and well-being constructs. As expected, students “in love now” declared more satisfaction with love life than those “not in love now”. Erotic, pragmatic, and agapic orientations correlated significantly with the SWLLS scores. There were also significant positive correlations between the scores of the SWLLS and life satisfaction, and self-esteem. Significant negative correlations were observed between the scores of the SWLLS and loneliness. The results showed that satisfaction with love life contributes significantly and in an unique way to loneliness and self-esteem, even after controlling for participants’ sex and age. The findings of the current study suggest that the Arabic version of the SWLLS makes up a brief psychometrically sound instrument to assess love life satisfaction.
... Anotherstrainofresearch,''relationshipscience,''hasfocused on various forms of passionate love (e.g., infatuation) and companionate love (involving intimacy and commitment/attachment). These types of love are considered to be universal, biological phenomenon rooted in neuropsychological correlates, documented across a considerable number of cultural groups, and entrenched with evolutionary significance (e.g., bonding, mating) (Feybesse & Hatfield, 2016;Hatfield & Rapson, 1987, 2009Karandashev & Clapp, 2016;Sternberg, 1988). The congruence between romantic domains (''the desire for union with another'') and sexual arousal/desire (''the desire for sexual union with another'') has been characterized as strongly associated, tightly linked constructs that overlap but are not identical (Hatfield & Rapson, 1987, 2009). ...
Full-text available
This exploratory study assessed physiological, behavioral, and self-report measures of sexual and romantic indicators of sexual orientation identities among young men (mean age = 21.9 years) with predominant same-sex sexual and romantic interests: those who described themselves as bisexual leaning gay (n = 11), mostly gay (n = 17), and gay (n = 47). Although they were not significantly distinguishable based on physiological (pupil dilation) responses to nude stimuli, on behavioral and self-report measures a descending linear trend toward the less preferred sex (female) was significant regarding sexual attraction, fantasy, genital contact, infatuation, romantic relationship, sex appeal, and gazing time to the porn stimuli. Results supported a continuum of sexuality with distinct subgroups only for the self-report measure of sexual attraction. The other behavioral and self-report measures followed the same trend but did not significantly differ between the bisexual leaning gay and mostly gay groups, likely the result of small sample size. Results suggest that romantic indicators are as good as sexual measures in assessing sexual orientation and that a succession of logically following groups from bisexual leaning gay, mostly gay, to gay. Whether these three groups are discrete or overlapping needs further research.
Full-text available
Araştırmanın amacı; ilkokul, ortaokul ve lise öğrencilerinin sevgi algılarını belirlemektir. Araştırma, nitel araştırma desenlerinden “olgu bilim” deseni kapsamında yürütülmüştür. Araştırmada amaçlı örnekleme yöntemlerinden maksimum çeşitlilik örneklemesi tercih edilmiştir. Çeşitlemede; okul kademesi, okul türü, okul başarı durumu, sınıf seviyesi ve cinsiyet değişkenleri kullanılmıştır. Çalışma grubunu; üç ilkokul, üç ortaokul ve üç lisede farklı sınıf düzeylerinde eğitim gören toplamda 95 öğrenci oluşturmaktadır. Veri toplama tekniği olarak projeksiyon tekniklerinden; “kelime çağrışım tekniği”, veri toplama aracı olarak kelime çağrışım formu kullanılmıştır. Veriler kavram analizi tekniği ile analiz edilmiştir. Araştırma sonunda; her kademede “sevgi” ile “aşk” kavramlarının yoğun bir şekilde ilişkili olduğu, öğrencilerin koşulsuz sevgiden daha çok romantik sevgi algısına sahip oldukları görülmüştür. Öğrencilerin genel olarak; “iyilik”, “kardeşlik”, “paylaşmak”, “şefkat”, “merhamet” ve “hoşgörü” ile ilgili olumlu algılara sahip oldukları görülmüştür.
Full-text available
Perceptions of teachers and school principals, who constitute the basic inputs of the education system, on various subjects, determine the quality of social life and directly affect the formation of perceptions that students have and will have. In this context, the aim of this research is to determine the perception of compassionate love, democracy and student centered education of students, teachers and principals. The research was carried out within the scope of the phenomenologic design of qualitative research designs. The working group of the research was formed using “maximum diversity sampling method”, which is one of the purposeful sampling methods. In variation, “school level”, “school type”, “school achievement status”, “grade level”, “branch” and “gender” variables were used. For each of the primary, secondary and high school levels, three schools were selected by considering the school types and success levels. The working group of the research consists of 630 students, 18 teachers and eight principals (total 656) who are either attending or working in these schools. In the research, “projection techniques” were used as data collection techniques. While collecting data from students, “word association technique”, “sentence completion technique” and “story completion technique” were used, and while collecting data from teachers and principals “story interpretation technique” was used. “Concept analysis”, “descriptive analysis-content analysis”, “content analysis” and “discourse analysis” techniques, were used in the analysis of the data collected with word association, sentence completion, story completion, and story interpretation forms, respectively. It was determined that students have perceptions of both “romantic love” and “compassionate love”. It was seen that the perception of “compassionate love” is more intense in primary school, however, it was also seen that as the levels progressed, the perception of “conditional love” is increased. It was determined that students think that those who have good qualities, those who respond to our love, and those who benefit us and those who treat us well should be loved. It was observed that love is “kindness” and “brotherhood” oriented in primary school, “respect” and “tolerance” in secondary school, and “respect” and “trust” oriented in high school. It was seen that students have person-centered and non-democratic perceptions beside people-centered perception regarding to the management of the country. It was also seen that some of the students perceive the terms rights and freedoms as a “no rule”, while others adopt the prohibitive approach. It was determined that students have lack of knowledge, misconceptions and negative perceptions about the elements of democracy. It was determined that students' perceptions about the conducting of the courses are lecture oriented and traditional understanding of the use of materials is dominant. It was observed that the teachers are seen as the persons who are responsible for the courses and provided the control in the class, and the emphasis is placed on exams, performance, behaviors and class participation as assessment criteria. It was determined that students have the perception that decisions should be taken by either “teacher”, “principal”, or “head of the class”. It was concluded that the teachers have two different the perceptions as waiting for or not waiting for a response for love. Teachers have a perception that love is based on mutual reactions and that love will change according to the behavior and reactions of the other people. It was seen that respect is the basis of teachers' perceptions of love and respect is thought to be a prerequisite. It was determined that teachers do not have a “person-centered” understanding but they think that democracy is dysfunctional. The teachers emphasized that democracy is a form of a regime based on the will of the people, the public joins the governance and has a voice in making decisions, and create the rules together.mIt was observed that the teachers think that although democracy is good in theory, it is dysfunctional in practice, that democracy is a tool of oppression / domination, that it is a tool used by developed countries to achieve their hidden agenda, and that it does not fit into the Islamic geography because it is a value created by the western countries. It was concluded that the teachers have two different perceptions that the student should be in the center and the teacher should be in the center. It was also concluded that some of the teachers preferred that the teacher is supposed to be in the authority position rather than a guide position in the classroom. It was seen that teachers' opinions about student centered education contain inconsistencies, they do not actually know student centered education and they do not believe in the philosophy of it. It was seen that the principals have two different perceptions of love, which a response should and should not be expected. While there are some principals who have compassionate love, some principals have an understanding of love based on response and expectations. It was seen that some principals have the perception that sovereignty should belong to the people and while the others think that sovereignty should belong to the principals. The principals think that the majority is not always be right, that a single person can make the right decisions on his own, that democracy is not a good form of government, that the majority rule the state, that the people's thoughts are shaped by various means, and that democracy is used by developed countries. It was seen that the principals have two different perceptions that the student should be in the center and that the teacher should be in the center. It was seen that some principals emphasized the roles of the teacher guiding, orienting, observing, becoming a learning partner, encouraging, and motivating. It was also seen that some principals do not accept student centered education approach and had a traditional perception of education. They think that students cannot be given the right to choose, and that students do not have the capacity to make their own decisions. Based on the results obtained at the end of the research, various suggestions have been developed for Higher Education Board, Ministry of Education, teachers and principals, and researchers.
Romantic love has been explored by writers for centuries revealing multiple emotions and feelings related to this phenomenon. Scientific efforts to understand love began in the mid-twentieth century and greatly advanced the topic in the past few decades. Several instruments measuring love were developed. They are still, however, limited in their scope. The purpose of our study was to explore love's emotional complexity through discourse analysis of romantic narratives and apply the constructs identified in those narratives to the reality of love relationships. In the first study, the discourse analysis of quotes selected from a representative sample of romantic narratives lead to a comprehensive set of items measuring the variety of love constructs. Second and third studies, utilizing 498 participants of various ages, empirically explored the diversity of love constructs and their architecture. The study brought many constructs to the arena of love research. A hierarchical cluster analysis allowed depicting these dimensions in varying models. Mental representations of love structures varied depending on the participants' mental complexity and other factors.
This . . . book is suitable for courses in social psychology, marriage and the family, human sexuality, intimacy, and interpersonal relationships. It is comprehensive, research-based, and incorporates clinical case studies, historical scholarship, cross-cultural comparisons, cultural analyses, and personal commentary in its exploration of the powerful subject of love and intimacy. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Study 1 identified a 3-dimensional latent structure of the prototype of love, based on factor analyzing centrality ratings of 68 prototypical features of love identified by B. Fehr (see record 1989-04996-001); we labeled these Passion, Intimacy, and Commitment. Studies 2 and 3 cross-validated this result with new samples. Study 4 showed convergent and discriminant validity of scales based on these dimensions and compared results with the centrality-rating method to an alternative prototype-relevant method. Study 5 found convergent and discriminant validity with a version of R. J. Sternberg's (1988) Triangular Love Scale. Study 5 also obtained the same 3-dimensional structure for both people's concept of love and descriptions of their own love relationships but the emphasis among dimensions corresponded only moderately between concept and descriptions. Study 6 showed correspondences between prototype-feature dimensions and love styles (C. Hendrick & S. Hendrick, see record 73:13421; J. A. Lee, 1977). Study 7 examined a shortened scale for the 3 dimensions and replicated the main results of Study 6 with that scale. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Psychologists' efforts to understand love began in the mid-twentieth century. The fact that they continue apace in the twenty-first century reflects increased awareness of the importance of love to understanding relationship phenomena and acknowledgment that an understanding of love has yet to be achieved. This article (a) describes one source of increased recognition that the present confusions surrounding love must be transcended if progress is to be made in understanding many relationship phenomena; (b) discusses the failure to explicate the love construct, which constitutes the major obstacle to the study of love phenomena; (c) discusses the need for a temporal model of love in relationships; and (d) suggests that it is important to consider the presence or absence of four types of love, each of which appears to be associated with different causal conditions and thus is likely to have a different temporal course as an adult relationship moves through time.
Passionate and companionate love in newlywed couples (Unpublished manuscript)
  • E Hatfield
  • D Nerenz
  • D Greenberger
  • P Lambert
  • S Sprecher
Hatfield, E., Nerenz, D., Greenberger, D., Lambert, P., & Sprecher, S. (1982). Passionate and companionate love in newlywed couples (Unpublished manuscript). University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA. Retrieved from