Self-Initiated Autonomy- and Intimacy-promoting Love ...

Self-Initiated Autonomy- and Intimacy-promoting Love Expressions

Anette Karin Åbom

Master Thesis in Social Psychology Department of Psychology

University of Oslo

June 2020

© Anette Karin Åbom

Year: 2020

Title: Self-initiated Autonomy- and Intimacy-promoting Love Expressions.

Author: Anette Åbom

Abstract

Name of Author: Anette Åbom Name of Supervisor: Beate Seibt

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

of couple counselors and trainers. It will then be important to understand the interplay of self-

initiated love expressions with other known influences, most notably responsive support giving and

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

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my supervisor, Beate Seibt, for all the feedback and guidance I have

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.

Table of Contents

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

Running Head: AUTONOMY- AND INTIMACY-PROMOTING LOVE EXPRESSIONS

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

!1

AUTONOMY- AND INTIMACY-PROMOTING LOVE EXPRESSIONS

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

!2


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

!3


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

!4


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,

!5


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

!6


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

!7


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

!8


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,

!9


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

!10


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

!11


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).

!12


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

!13


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

!14


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

!15


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

!16

http://nettskjema.no


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).

!17


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

!18


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

!19


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.

!20


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 = .

!21


002), while the preference of expressing love through acts showed a negative, weak association

with relationship satisfaction (ρ = -.23, p = .039).

No preference of received love language was significantly associated with relationship

satisfaction. Conversely, how often participants reported actually receiving the different love

languages from their partner correlated positively and fairly moderately with their relationship

satisfaction (ρ = .38, p < .001). These findings highlight the importance of differentiating between

preferences and actual needs.

Pilot Study 1 corroborated previous research in finding strong associations between

attachment security and relationship satisfaction, in which attachment avoidance was a strong

negative predictor while anxiety was a more moderate one.

Also, several novel findings were discovered, among them a weak, positive correlation

between the intensity of a specific kama muta experience in the romantic relationship as recollected

in the survey situation and relationship satisfaction. Likewise, an overall estimate by participants of

how often they were moved or touched in their relationship was weakly, positively related to overall

satisfaction with the relationship. These two findings suggest that experiencing frequent and intense

kama muta is a sign of a healthy relationship and may contribute to overall relationship satisfaction.

Kama muta frequency and intensity were also positively related to attachment security.

Here, only attachment avoidance, and not attachment anxiety, negatively predicted how often and

how intense participants reported feeling moved or touched in the relationship. Avoidant individuals

appraised the recollected kama muta experience as promoting less closeness, being a less positive

emotion, and felt less motivated to behaviorally confirm a bond with the partner compared to what

more secure individuals reported.

Finally, the results suggested that the reported frequency of receiving love languages was

positively associated with attachment security and relationship satisfaction. Regarding the ranked

preference of using the five love languages, the more secure and satisfied participants were in their

relationship, the higher they ranked expressing their love through touch. The opposite relationship

obtained between the preference of expressing love through acts of service on the one hand and

security and satisfaction on the other. Thus, being particularly eager to touch the partner seems to be

a sign of a healthy relationship, while being particularly eager to do things for them may be a sign

of insecurity or discontent.

Pilot Study 2

The purpose of executing pilot study number 2 was threefold: (1) to explore how individuals

in romantic relationships actively construe situations where they communicate love for their

partner, (2) to investigate what these different love expressions may signal to the partner, and (3) to

!22


examine what individuals regard as crucial ingredients for romantic relationships to function well.

With detailed examples provided by the participants covering a wide range of love expressions, my

hope was to lay the foundation for generating an initial pool of items for the self-initiated autonomy

and intimacy promoting love expression scale.

Method

Participants. Scandinavian individuals who currently were in a romantic relationship were

sought out as participants for the qualitative interviews. Three individuals responded from a

published post about the interview on a social media platform, expressing that they wanted to

participate. Ten other individuals from Scandinavia, contributing to equal representation of both

genders, but also representing a diversity in age, educational background, relationship duration, and

relationship status, were approached through different social media platforms or face-to-face

encounters and asked to participate. Nine of these individuals responded positively to the approach,

however, only 6 of them ended up being interviewed due to their response latency. The final 9

participants who agreed to participate were 4 males and 5 females from Norway (n = 8) and Sweden

(n = 1).

Procedure and Materials. The interviews were conducted via a phone call on the social 9

media platform they had been recruited from or in a personal meeting. A decision to not record or

transcribe the interviews were deliberately made due to time constraints and pilot study framework.

Instead, notes were taken.

A comprehensive understanding of the subject, gained through an extensive literature

review, laid the foundation for developing the interview guide. Emphasis was put on creating

questions that would entail a balance between being non-directive, encouraging the participants to

talk freely and by such generate novel insights, while at the same time guide the direction for the

interview so that the research questions for pilot study 2 could be elucidated. With these flexibility

needs in mind, semi-structured interviews were deemed a suitable method for an initial and highly

exploratory investigation of the topic. In total, 6 questions were posed in order to address the three 10

objectives for pilot study 2.

Analytical Method and Coding System. The qualitative data was analyzed with thematic

analysis as a guiding method, and by taking a reflexive approach (Braun & Clarke, 2013)

characterized by an iterative process . After the coding scheme was completed, items were 11

developed that could represent each theme or sub-theme. In order to optimize the reliability and

See Appendix E for a detailed description of the procedure.9

See Appendix F for the interview guide for Pilot Study 2.10

See Appendix E for a more detailed description of the analytical method and coding system being used in Pilot Study 11

2. !23


validity of the constructed scale, all items were scrutinized together with my supervisor for their

ability to reflect the conceptualization of self-initiated love expressions and their autonomy or

intimacy promoting potential.

The participant’s interpretation of what the different love expressions signaled were

implemented into the descriptions of the different themes and sub-themes. Additionally, a post-

interpretation was conducted in terms of the love expression’s implicit messages within each theme

and sub-theme. Together, all of the suggested signals were extracted from the results to inaugurate a

supplementary analysis, hoping to identify some higher-order signal-themes. Finally, all clusters,

sub-clusters, themes, sub-themes, behavioral characteristics and signals, higher-order themes and

sub-themes, and items were reviewed to ascertain they assembled a good representation of the text

excerpts, nodes, and the entirety of the interviews.


Characteristics of the Clusters. Largely in line with the first pilot study’s differentiation

between five love languages as presented by Chapman (2015), the thematic analysis of the

interviews resulted in six overarching clusters of communication ways to express love towards the

romantic partner. By such, the data was allocated to largely pre-identified clusters. The first one,

named ”Words”, were found to communicate a wide array of messages, which was reflected in the

extensive collection of themes and sub-themes that emerged from this cluster. The cluster of

”Sensory Attention” involved three different sub-clusters, in which attention was expressed through

”Eyes”, ”Facial Expressions”, or ”Voice”. The third cluster, ”Experiences”, involved expressing

love through experiencing something ”Together” or ”Separately”. The fourth cluster was named

”Surprises”. Some of the participants in the qualitative pilot study emphasized gift-giving as one

essential way to augment the feeling of love within the romantic relationship. However, with the

results from pilot study 1 in mind, where gifts in general were considered being the least preferred

received and expressed love language among the participants, as well as being the love language

that correlated the least with relationship satisfaction, I started wondering whether the ”tangible

symbols of affection” as Chapman (2015) holds it, could be of subordinate importance relative to

the surprising elements of them. Indeed, numerous kama muta descriptions in pilot study 1, as well

as several descriptions in pilot study 2, provided examples of surprising situations that gave rise to a

sudden increase in positive feelings. These surprises did not only include tangible objects, but also

words and actions. For this reason, both ”Gifts”, ”Words”, and ”Actions” were attached as sub-

clusters. The cluster ”Acts” included the sub-clusters ”Practicality”, ”Shared Care”, and ”Evoking

Attraction”. Finally, ”Physical Touch” included the sub-clusters ”Proximity”, ”Caressing” and

”Sexual Intimacy”.

!24


Themes and Sub-themes within the Clusters. The thematic analysis terminated in 18

themes and several connected sub-themes distributed among the clusters, which in turn comprised

the structure for generating a total of 130 operationalized items. Because of the limited scope of this

study, all of the themes and sub-themes within the different clusters, as well as the corresponding

description of them, and interpretation of their signals are presented in more detail in the

appendix . 12

Higher-order Signal-themes. Interesting results emerged from the analysis of all the

suggested signals that were attached to each theme or sub-theme, which generated higher-order

signal-themes and sub-themes, as depicted in Figure 1, that appeared to reflect the concepts of

intimacy and autonomy in a clearer way than the first analysis. Two higher-order signal-themes

were identified, consisting of signals that either indicated a Very Important Relationship (VIR) or a

Very Important Person (VIP).

Very Important Relationship. VIR reflected what some of the participants described as

”only ours” or the ”we-together-project”. Signals that communicated a unique and irreplaceable

relationship belonged to this theme. VIR entailed three higher-order sub-themes; ”Emotional

connection”, ”Nurtured sexuality”, and ”Dedication”, in which all were considered representing

intimacy promoting love expression signals.

Emotional connection. ”Emotional connection” was constituted by signals that indicated

the existence of positive and profound emotions for the partner and the relationship. The entire

sample of participants emphasized how a genuine and all-embracing openness was a clearly distinct

differentiation that could be made when comparing their romantic relationship with other

relationships in their lives. Several of them described this openness as an experience of ”sharing

everything”, having the courage to be emotionally vulnerable, or used a metaphor of letting the

partner come to their innermost fence where hardly any or no one else were allowed to approach.

When the participants were asked to elaborate on this, they made explicit reference to the oral

exchange of experiences, feelings, and thoughts, and highlighted this as one particularly strong

contributor to emotional bonds and security being developed. In fact, the oral exchange of

emotional matters was so central in the romantic relationship to some participants that they said

they would feel disappointed, hurt, or even betrayed if their partner chose to raise emotional

subjects to others before or instead of revealing them to themselves.

A vast majority of the participants also highlighted other supplementary ways to convey

positive emotions about the partner and the relationship. Quite transparently and explicitly they

could be communicated by using clear verbal expressions with references to own emotions about

See Appendix G for a detailed presentation of all clusters, themes, sub-themes, descriptions, and items.12

!25


the partner and the relationship, but it could also be expressed through behavior that unambiguously

signaled a desire to spend time with the partner, having fun together, a non-mechanical participation

in the relationship, and noticeable enjoyment in the transmission of love messages.

Nurtured sexuality. The entire sample of participants also unanimously highlighted physical

intimacy as a clearly distinct differentiation between their romantic relationship and their other

relationships. Here, it was not only the presence of physical touch that was central to them, but the

emotions connected to it, which explains why some of them stated that the same touch would not

have the same impact if given by someone else.

The participants’ reported desire to maintain a healthy sexual activity within the romantic

relationship reflect a view of the relationship as important, strong emotions for the partner, or a

wish to strengthen the emotional bonds. Sexual desire per se does not necessarily indicate emotional

bonds and vice versa (Aron, Fisher, Mashek, & Strong, 2005). However, nurtured sexuality (with or

without experienced attraction or sexual desire) in stable romantic relationships should be closely

associated with intimacy, since such regular behavior signal commitment and a wish to sustain or

strengthen the emotional ties to the partner. This notion may explain why avoidant individuals have

been found to react favorably to ”no-strings attached” sex (Schacher & Shaver, 2002), partake in

extradyadic copulations (Paul, McManus, & Hayes, 2000), and compared to secure individuals

display less affection when having sex with their partner (Birnbaum, Reis, Mikulincer, Gillath,

Orpaz, 2006). Birnbaum and Reis (2019) recently presented a model that in a brilliant way depicts

what possibly happens during relationship development regarding the dynamics of sexual urges and

emotional attachments. The model postulates that sexual desire is most important in earlier stages of

the relationship functioning as a relationship-promoter, while it may lose some of its prominence as

a binding force in later stages since the emotional connection that already has been formed then are

upheld by other processes. However, even though the authors highlight gratifying sexual activity as

a tool to assuage adverse relational events and by such have function of restoring the emotional

connection, I would argue that nurtured sexuality in later stages of relationships also represents an

important intimacy-sustaining function, even though the sexual desire in itself may no longer be the

salient driving force behind it.

Dedication. ”Dedication” was constituted by signals that indicated a firm and principled

stand on remaining sexually faithful, as well as intentions to spend the future together with the

partner. This loyalty towards the partner, was accentuated by a majority of the participants as central

to their romantic relationship. Some described how they occasionally reminded themselves as

couples that they would continue being together and about their ”duty towards each other”. Others

described how infidelity undoubtedly would have inflicted the most devastating damage on their

!26


relationship, and represent a betrayal so grievous that the resulting emotional injury would be

beyond repairability. This VIR higher-order sub-theme was considered to reflect intimacy

promoting love expressions because of the research literature’s emphasis on commitment as one

central factor contributing to intimacy in enduring romantic relationships (Moss & Schwebel,

1993).

Very Important Person. In contrast to VIR, VIP reflected signals that had the partner as the

focal point instead of the relationship. For this reason, these signals were considered contributing to

what the participants highlighted as a necessary ingredient in a romantic relationship: to feel

special. VIP entailed four higher-order sub-themes, in which three of them were considered

representing autonomy promoting love expression signals, whereas one was considered

representing intimacy promoting love expression signals.

Emotional person. The latter was named ”Emotional person” since it constituted signals

that indicated acknowledgement of the partner’s deep-seated feelings, regardless of their positive or

negative valence and their intensity, as well as an unambiguous and altruistic desire to increase his/

her emotional well-being both in the short term and the long term. The participants stressed the

importance of being conscious about how their words and actions could affect the partner's

emotions. In some circumstances, they tried to remind themselves of the possibility that their

partner’s emotions could be as strong as their own. Moreover, a contagious aspect of emotions

became evident in some of the participants’ examples and explanations. Making the partner happy

would make themselves happy, and the partner’s excitement or enthusiasm on their part would

positively affect them, some declared. Research findings do support this contagious aspect of

emotions (Williamson & Clark, 1989; Reis, Maniaci, & Rogge, 2017), and probably most people

with empathic abilities have experienced this phenomenon. It sure is a reminder about the imminent

and powerful effects of emotive communication.

Respectable person. ”Respectable person” was composed of signals that indicated a view of

the partner as a responsible and valuable person who deserved to be treated with respect and honor.

Here, equality emerged as a central key-word, reflecting the partner’s right and worthiness to

experience the same privileges as oneself within the relationship. A mindset of ”serving the other”

instead of chasing a never-ending micromanagement of privilege allotments were central to this

theme. Practical tasks were often given as examples, where several of the participants admitted they

did not enjoy some of the routinely tasks they engaged in, but still had chosen to do them on a

regular basis. When reflecting upon how a serving attitude from their partner would affect

themselves, they upheld that a natural and repetitious initiative to engage in such everyday practical

tasks, as well as doing something extra now and then, contributed to the experience of being taken

!27


care of. In light of the participants’ concurrent accentuation of expressing gratefulness in a romantic

relationship, it becomes clear that the serving attitude bears the potential for abuse by the partner.

Thus, clearly expressed gratitude may play a significant role in preventing an experience of power

imbalance, even in circumstances where there do exists an unequal input of effort into the project of

sustaining or improving each other’s well-being. After all, it may precisely convey a view of the

partner as being responsible and valuable who deserves to be respected and honored. Even though

gratefulness most likely contributes to intimacy to some degree, I suspect that it primarily belongs

to the autonomy promoting love expressions because of its inherent empowering characteristic and

typical focus on the other person’s acts. Accordingly, engaging in daily responsibilities and

initiating doing practical tasks also was considered belonging to the autonomy promoting love

expressions because of their self-supporting and operative characteristics, and focus on

practicalities instead of potential emotional underpinnings.

Unique person. Signals that indicated undivided attention, interest in and positive view of

the partner’s persona, abilities, perspectives, and appearance, gave rise to the higher-order sub-

theme "Unique person”. This could involve an active use of the senses directed toward the partner,

an active engagement in conversations through posing uncritical questions about the person or

relevant topic, or giving compliments to the partner. Because of the intense focus on the partner,

”Unique person” was attached to the autonomy promoting love expressions in the presented model,

even though signals of positive evaluations contribute to higher intimacy levels in a relationship

(Markman, Stanley, and Blumberg, 1994), this higher-order sub-theme is about the expression of a

positive view of the partner that can be grounded in concrete cognitive explanations or descriptions

about his/her specific qualities. Such communication may contribute to an environment in which

each couple member blooms and continuously seeks to become the best version of him/herself.

Strong person. Love expressions within ”Strong person” focus on how the partner could

experience satisfaction and strength. By such, these signals concerned a desire to sustain or improve

the partner’s sense of autonomy, control, development, and psychological balance. Optimism,

contentment, goals, encouragement, and challenge emerged as sub-themes in the analysis of the

interviews, and all of these sub-themes shared a common objective of making the partner

experience positive feelings characterized by empowerment.

Pilot Study 2 resulted in an extensive collection of love expression descriptions reflecting a

wide array of messages being signaled to the partner. These descriptions were coded, resulting in 18

themes and several connected sub-themes distributed among six clusters, which in turn comprised

the structure for generating a total of 130 operationalized items. Two higher-order signal-themes

were identified, consisting of signals that either indicated a Very Important Relationship (VIR) or a

!28


Very Important Person (VIP). VIR communicated a unique and irreplaceable relationship. Here,

”Emotional connection”, ”Nurtured sexuality”, and ”Dedication” emerged as 3 sub-themes, in

which all were considered representing intimacy promoting love expression signals. Interestingly,

these themes replicate Sternberg’s three facets of love as differentiated in his love triangle, intimacy,

passion and commitment, which together he called consummate or complete love (Sternberg, 1986).

VIP reflected instead signals that had the partner as the focal point. Here, ”Emotional person”,

”Respectable person”, ”Unique person”, and ”Strong person” emerged as 4 sub-themes, in which

the latter 3 were considered representing autonomy promoting love expression signals.

Main Study

Two overarching goals were directing the main study. The first objective was to arrive at a

valid and reliable scale that measured self-initiated autonomy and intimacy promoting love

expression in romantic relationships. Secondly, the main study was executed with the aim of

utilizing the constructed scale to investigate how such enactments of love expressions were

associated with kama muta frequency, relationship satisfaction, and attachment orientation within

romantic relationships. To do so, I tested 8 preregistered hypotheses, derived from the literature

as well as from the two pilot studies and supplemented these with exploratory analyses, some

based on the preregistration, and some based on an examination of the data or further insights

when thinking more about the topic. In the preregistration I hypothesized that (1) the new scale

SAILS will predict relationship satisfaction, (2) intimacy promoting love expressions will

negatively correlate with avoidance (3) and predict a significant amount of variance in avoidance

controlling for autonomy promoting love expressions, (4) autonomy promoting love expressions

will negatively correlate with anxiety (5) and predict a significant amount of variance in anxiety

controlling for intimacy promoting love expressions, (6) kama muta frequency will negatively

correlate with avoidance, (7) kama muta frequency will positively correlate with relationship

satisfaction (8) and intimacy promoting love expressions and not autonomy promoting love

expressions will mediate this latter association. I indicate the status of each hypothesis in the

result section. Note, also, that the regression models test prediction in a statistical sense; I do not

wish to imply a causal direction.

Methods

Participants. Three hundred participants, stratified by gender (male, female), age (18-29,

30-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-80), and nationality (United States, Great Britain), falling within the

inclusion criteria of being at least 18 years of age, speaking English fluently, and currently being

in a romantic relationship, were recruited from Prolific, receiving £2.09 as a reward for

participating. Since some recruited participants returned their ticket, but still ended up being

!29


registered as responses in Qualtrics, a total of 320 participants entered the initial data analysis.

Among the collected responses, 8 participants completed less than 96% of the survey, and

another 9 participants did not confirm they were 18 years old, were in a romantic relationship, or

agreed to participate in the study. These responses were excluded from further analysis. Also,

seven responses evidenced suspicion that would warrant deletion from the collected data set . A 13

final sample of 296 participants between 18 and 77 years old (M = 44.26, SD = 15.32), among

them 145 women, 147 men, and 4 participants categorizing their gender as ”other”, ended up

being included in all of the analyses.

Procedure and Materials. The survey was implemented in Qualtrics. Participants

completed a variety of measures which (after 3 demographic questions about age, gender, and

relationship duration) were presented in a randomized order. Furthermore, all items within each

measure were presented in a randomized order. All participants had to answer the same

questions . 14

The main predictor in the study was the pool of items that had been generated during the

analyses in Pilot Study 2 , which initially constituted the new scale, the Self-initiated Autonomy- 15

and Intimacy-promoting Love Expressions Scale (SAILS). Before item reduction and factor

analysis of the scale, SAILS had 130 items (SAILS-I: 79 items, SAILS-A: 51 items) in which 8

of them were reverse keyed. For 112 items, the response categories were 0 (I never/hardly ever

do that), 1 (not during the last two weeks), 2 (1-2 times last two weeks), 3 (2-3 times per week), 4

(4-5 times per week), 5 (once a day), and 6 (several times a day). For the remaining 18 items, the

response categories were 0 (I never/hardly ever do that), 1 (once a year), 2 (2-3 times a year), 3

(6-7 times a year), 4 (once a month), 5 (2-3 times a month), and 6 (once a week). I calculated a

total score by averaging all autonomy items and then likewise for all intimacy items.

Relationship satisfaction was measured with the short-version of Relationship Satisfaction

Questionnaire (RS5; Røysamb, Vittersø, & Tambs, 2014; α = .91 in this current study), and

Attachment orientation was measured with Experiences in Close Relationships, Relationship

Structures Questionnaire (ECR-RS; Fraley, Heffernan, Vicary, & Brumbaug, 2011). The whole 16

Two tests were conducted to check for potential inconsistencies in the responses. For this, two specific questions in 13

RS5 (”I am very happy with our relationship” and the reversed item ”I often consider ending our relationship”), as well as two questions in ECP (”My relationship with my partner is clearly part of my future life plans” and the reversed item ”I may not want to be with my partner a few years from now”), were investigated in a histogram of the standardized residuals, a box plot, and scatterplot. Cases that emerged as outliers by distance, listed in the Casewise diagnostics of the responses, or emerged as ”general” outliers, were closely examined for other inconsistent responses in the survey, and eliminated if warranted.

One instrument measuring commitment is not presented here since it ended up not being used for the analyses.14

See Appendix G for an overview of the 130 items that were constructed based upon the emerging themes in the 15

interview analyses in Pilot Study 2. See the Method-section in Pilot Study 1 for a more detailed description of them.16

!30


scale measuring security obtained an α = .89 in the current study, while the avoidance subscale,

anxiety subscale showed a reliability of α = .90 and α = .84, respectively.

Kama muta frequency was measured with 4 questions from the Kama Muta Frequency Scale

(KAMF; Zickfeld et al., 2019; α = .88 in the current study). In section 1 the response categories are

0 (cannot remember being moved or touched), 1 (within the last year), 2 (within the last month), 3

(within the last week), and 4 (within the last 24 hours). In section 2 and 3, the response categories

are 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), while section 4 has

response categories ranging from 0 (not at all) to 6 (extremely). All items from the 4 questions were

calculated a total score and then averaged.

Intimacy TLS was measured with the intimacy subscale of The Triangular Love Scale (TLS;

Sternberg, 1997; α = .96 in the current study). Originally this subscale contains 15 items, but item

3,4, & 15 were excluded in this specific study because of their behavioral foundations which could

inflate intimacy TLS’s correlation with SAILS. Response categories range from 1 (strongly

disagree) to 9 (strongly agree). A total score and average were calculated for all items.

Intimacy IOS was measured with the Inclusion of Other in the Self (IOS; Aron, Aron, &

Smollan, 1992), which depicts two circles that overlap each other to different degrees. The response

categories consist of 7 pictures, each with a constant total area of both circles, but with a linearly

progressing degree of overlap.

Autonomous desire to grow was measured with the intentional behavior subscale of the

Personal Growth Initiative Scale II (PGIS-II; Robitschek et al., 2012; α = .93 in the current study).

This subscale has 4 items measured on a 6-point Likert scale (0=disagree strongly, 5=agree

strongly). A total score and average were calculated for all items.

Autonomous belief in own competence was measured with the New General Self-Efficacy

Scale (NGSE; Chen, Gully, & Eden, 2001; α = .91 in the current study). This instrument has 8 items

measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree). A total score and

average were calculated for all items.

Autonomous motivation was measured with the niceties subscale of the Motivations for

Relational Activities scale (MRA; Gaine & La Guardia, 2009). This subscale has 14 items measured

on a 7-points Likert scale (1=not at all true, 7=very true). The authors of the scale found the items to

cluster into two factors, reflecting autonomous activity motivation (identified regulation and

intrinsic motivation), while controlled activity motivation (external and introjected regulation) were

loading on another factor. For this reason, the authors suggested that a score should be computed for

each of them. For this reason, I calculated their separate total scores and average. The reliability of

!31


the MRA autonomy subscale was in the current study α = .89, while it was α = .75 for the MRA

controlled subscale.

Since Pilot Study 1 indicated that the amount of received love languages were crucial for the

participants’ relationship satisfaction, and since dyads were not recruited for this Main Study, I

chose to generate a few items that could reflect the level of perceived received autonomy and

intimacy promoting love expressions from a partner. These items were constructed based upon the

VIP and VIR higher-order sub-themes that emerged from analyses of love expression signals in

Pilot Study 2. The resulting 15 items, in which 8 of them were considered being autonomy

promoting (2 reverse keyed) and 7 items intimacy promoting, ended up constituting what was

named the Perceived received autonomy and intimacy scale (PRAI). Response categories here range

from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The first 8 items were calculated and averaged into

a perceived received autonomy subscale (PRAI-A), and likewise the 7 remaining items into a

perceived received intimacy subscale (PRAI-I). The whole scale achieved an α = .92 in the current

study, while PRAI-A and PRAI-I showed an α = .85 and α = .87, respectively.

Effort was measured with the effort subscale of Behavioral Self-Regulation for Effective

Relationships Scale (BSRERS; Wilson, Charker, Lizzio, Halford, & Kimlin, 2005; α = .82 in the

current study). This subscale has 6 items (all reverse keyed) that are measured on a 5-point Likert

scale (1=not true at all, 5=very true). A total score and average were calculated for all items.

Manipulation of data. When assessing normality of each variable in the main study, 11

univariate extreme outliers (>3*IQR) were detected within 4 of the variables (PRAI, PRAI-I,

Intimacy TLS, and Autonomous belief in own competence). Since it is not possible to know

whether extreme outliers represent cases drawn from a different population or instead are unique

and valid cases from the sample population, it is not recommended to eliminate them, but rather

change them (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). Changing them to one unit larger than the largest non-

extreme score in the distributions, resulted in improved Q-Q plots on the offending variables.

Evaluation of assumptions. Before testing the main predictions for this study, preliminary

analyses were performed to ensure no violation of the assumptions of normality, linearity,

multicollinearity, and homoscedasticity. The two scales of SAILS turned out to correlate

substantially (r = .84, p < .001), which represented a potential problem for the analyses. However,

all Tolerance values in all analyses were above the cut-off of .10, and Variance inflation factor

values were all well below the cut-off of 10, which indicated no presence of multicollinearity. Even

though many of the variables were skewed, inspections of the Normal Probability Plots of the

Regression Standardized Residuals still suggested no major problems with non-normality. For this

reason, no variable was transformed prior to the analyses. Also, most of the scores concentrated in a

!32


reasonably rectangularly shaped centre of the Scatterplot of the standardized residuals, suggesting

no violation of homoscedasticity and independence of residuals. One or more outliers were detected

in the Casewise Diagnostics of some pairs of variables. However, these cases did not seem to have

any undue influence on the results for the models as a whole since no maximum value for Cook’s

Distance was larger than the cut-off of 1.

Furthermore, the suitability of each data set was assessed prior to the factor analyses. The

correlation matrices revealed many coefficients above .30, which indicated sufficiently strong

correlations among the items. No inter-item correlations were greater than .80. The Bartlett’s test of

sphericity (Bartlett, 1954) reached statistical significance for both scales (SAILS-A: 𝜒2(465) =

5312.39, p < .001; SAILS-I: 𝜒2(946) = 8650.77, p < .001), which rejected the null hypothesis that

the correlation matrices were identity matrices and furthermore indicated sufficient minimum

sample size. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value was .96 for both SAILS-A and SAILS-I, which Kaiser

(1974) suggests is a marvelous KMO value, indicating sampling adequacy. The distributions of

each scale were found to be normal, and no extreme outliers were present in either of them. Finally,

some combinations of variables (10 different pairs) were inspected in scatterplots to look for

curvilinear relations, but no such were found. Together, these observations and tests supported the

factorability of SAILS. All analyses in the current study were performed using SPSS (version 26).


Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA). The inter-item correlations and corrected item-total

correlations for all items within each scale (SAILS-A, SAILS-I) were investigated with the aim of

reducing the number of items and retaining the items that contributed the most to internal

consistency. In this process, items with the strongest inter-item correlations (> .30) and corrected

item-total correlations (> .30) were predominantly retained. However, since it was considered

important to preserve some of the breadth of ways to express love within the romantic relationship,

some rather mediocre corrected item-total correlations were accepted for some items representing a

different way at the expense of items with stronger corrected item-total correlations representing a

similar way. When some of the stronger items were eliminated because of this need of breadth, pairs

of items with a high correlation with each other representing similar communication ways were

examined and the one with the lower corrected item-total correlation communication was removed.

The 31 items in the autonomy scale of SAILS that were retained after the initial item-

reduction of the scale were subjected to an iterative process of factor analyses with the goal of 17

arriving at a sufficient number of factors to keep the different facets of the concept and to arrive at

See Appendix H for a detailed description of and rational behind the applied EFA methods.17

!33


distinct factors. This resulted in 25 items loading onto 3 factors explaining 60.34% of the total

variance in the scale . Based on item content, factor 1 was named ”Partner-oriented Affirmations”, 18

factor 2 ”Responsibility”, and lastly, factor 3 was named ”Goal-orientation”. The factors obtained

excellent (α = .93) and reliable (α = .84 and α = .90) levels of Cronbach’s Alpha, respectively

(Taber, 2017). Reliability test of the whole scale yielded a Cronbach’s Alpha of α = .95.

The factor analysis of the retained 44 items in SAILS-I, terminated in 25 items loading onto

3 factors that cumulatively explained 62.53% of the total variance in the scale (see Appendix J).

Based on item content, factor 1 was named ”Attraction”, factor 2 ”Emotional Bonds”, and the last

factor was named ”Sharing of Experiences”. Each of them obtained excellent (α = .94) and reliable

(α = .90 and α = .88) levels of Cronbach’s Alpha, respectively (Taber, 2017). Reliability test of the

whole scale yielded a Cronbach’s Alpha of α = .95.

Descriptive statistics of the scale items. Mean scores were calculated for each item in the

two scales . Within SAILS-A, mean scores in ”Partner-oriented Affirmations” ranged from 2.30 19

(”emphasized to my partner how unique I think he/she is”) to 3.72 (”made sure that my partner’s

efforts didn’t go unnoticed”), reaching a factor mean of 3.00 (SD = .07), which indicated that

participants on average had affirmed their partner about 4-5 times per week during the last two

weeks. In ”Responsibility” the mean scores ranged from 3.97 (”taken responsibility for our

practical needs (i.e., doing grocery shopping, or keeping things in order in or outside our house)”)

to 4.41 (”made sure I did my fair share of work at home”), with a factor mean of 4.17 (SD = .08),

indicating that participants on average engaged in such love expressions daily. ”Goal-orientation”

had somewhat lower means between 2.06 (”facilitated my partner’s engagement at work or in

special projects”) and 3.28 (”encouraged my partner to spend time on pleasurable activities”), and

factor mean of 2.76 (SD = .07), which suggested that participants on average had initiated goal-

oriented love expressions a little less than 4-5 times per week during the last two weeks.

Within SAILS-I, mean scores in ”Attraction” ranged from 2.71 (”touched my partner on his/

her intimate body parts”) to 4.37 (”kissed my partner”), with a factor mean of 3.52 (SD = .09),

which indicated that participants expressed attraction for their partner a little more than 4-5 times

per week on average. In ”Emotional Bonds” the mean was lower, ranging from 2.12 (”talked about

our relationship as unique and special”) to 2.90 (”told my partner that I love spending time with

him/her”), with a factor mean of 2.46 (SD = .09), suggesting that participants on average

communicated emotional bonds to their partner a little more than 2-3 times per week. Finally, the

See Appendix I and J for a display of the final parallel analysis, scree plot, rotated factor loadings from pattern 18

matrix, communalities, eigenvalues, variance explained, Cronbach’s Alpha, factor correlations, structure matrix, as well as means and standard deviations for the retained items in the final autonomy scale and intimacy scale of SAILS.

See Appendix I and J for a display of means and standard deviations for each item and factor.19

!34


mean of items ranged between 2.30 (”uncovered my deeper thoughts and feelings in conversations

with my partner”) and 3.80 (”told my partner about my day”) in ”Sharing of Experiences”, with a

factor mean of 3.13 (SD = .07), which indicated that participants on average initiated sharing of

experiences with their partner about 4-5 times per week.

Mean and standard deviations were calculated also for each of the main variables in the

main study. On average, participants were found to score low on both avoidance and anxiety

(MAvoidance = 2.47, SD = 1.20; MAvnxiety = 2.48, SD = 1.42; on a 1-7 point scale), and being satisfied

with their romantic relationship (M = 4.86, SD = 1.06; on a 1-6 point scale). They did not report

experiencing kama muta very often within the relationship, on average only about once a month (M

= 2.14, SD = 1.25; on a 0-7 point scale). Finally, they reported initiating both autonomy and

intimacy promoting love expressions about 4-5 times a week on average (MSAILS-A = 3.10, SD =

1.08; MSAILS-I = 3.13, SD = 1.20; on a 0-6 point scale), while they on average somewhat agreed or

agreed receiving autonomy and intimacy love expressions from their partner (MPRAI-A = 5.41, SD =

1.00; MPRAI-I = 5.61, SD = 1.09; on a 1-7 point scale). All of the main variables included in the

different hypotheses tests (except from kama muta frequency and anxiety) correlated significantly

with each other. 20

Convergent and discriminant validity tests of SAILS. Consistent with this study’s

overarching conceptualization of autonomy and intimacy promoting love expressions, and in line

with expectations, the two SAILS scales correlated with other established autonomy and intimacy

measures included in the main study. SAILS-I correlated positively and strongly with Intimacy TLS

(r = .58, p < .001) and Intimacy IOS (r = .52, p < .001). In contrast, the autonomy scale of SAILS

correlated only moderately with Intimacy TLS (r = .43, p < .001) and Intimacy IOS (r = .32, p < .

001). The obtained zobs value of 2.43 demonstrated a statistically significant difference in strength

between Intimacy TLS and the two scales of SAILS, and similarly the zobs value of 2.95 between

Intimacy IOS and the two scales of SAILS differed significantly.

SAILS-A correlated significantly with both Autonomous desire to grow (r = .29, p <.001),

Autonomous belief in own competence (r = .20, p = .001), and Autonomous motivations (r = .45, p

< .001). However, the preregistered hypothesis that these correlations would differ significantly in

strength from the correlations with SAILS-I (zobs = -.27; zobs = .00; zobs = 1.44, respectively), was

not supported. The measures of autonomy included in this study did not cross-correlate

substantially with each other (ranging from r = .25 to r = .32, all significant p < .001), suggesting

that they measured quite different aspects of autonomy. The two instruments SAILS and PRAI

correlated significantly with each other, in which SAILS-A correlated moderately and positively

See Appendix K for means, standard deviations, confidence intervals, and intercorrelations of all main variables.20

!35


with both PRAI-A and PRAI-I (r = .37, p < .001; r = .42, p < .001, respectively), while SAILS-I

showed stronger correlations with both PRAI-A and PRAI-I (r = .47, p < .001; r = .59, p < .001,

respectively).

Finally, in line with expectations, the individuals’ reported levels of self-initiated love

expressions reflected endeavors to maintain or improve their romantic relationship quality, since

SAILS correlated significantly with effort (r = .31, p < .001). SAILS-I (r = .34, p < .001) was

somewhat higher associated with effort than SAILS-A (r = .26, p < .001).

Hypotheses Testing. SAILS as a predictor of relationship satisfaction. In the first

hypothesis, I had predicted that SAILS would be significantly positively correlated with

relationship satisfaction. This was supported in the results revealing a quite strong positive

association between them (r = .47, p = < .001). Both scales correlated positively with relationship

satisfaction (SAILS-A: r = .35, p < .001; SAILS-I: r = .54, p < .001), but they differed significantly

in strength (zobs = 2.82), which indicated that SAILS-I explained significantly more of the variance

in relationship satisfaction compared with SAILS-A. An additional exploratory analysis was

conducted with the intention of obtaining a clearer understanding of how both versions of self-

initiated and both versions of received love expressions (perceived received autonomy and

intimacy; PRAI-A, PRAI-I) uniquely and jointly contributed to relationship satisfaction. In a

hierarchical multiple regression analysis, SAILS-A and SAILS-I were entered as two independent

variables in Step 1, with relationship satisfaction as the dependent variable. Model 1 here explained

32% of the variance in relationship satisfaction, reflecting a high effect value for self-initiated love

expressions on relationship satisfaction (Cohen, 1992). In Step 2, both PRAI-A and PRAI-I were

added as independent variables. Surprisingly, SAILS-A negatively predicted relationship

satisfaction in both Model 1 and 2 (SAILS-A in Model 2: B = -.20 ( .07), β = -.20, t(295) = -3.00, p

= .003), while each of the other three independent variables uniquely and positively predicted

relationship satisfaction in Model 2 (SAILS-I: B = .29 ( .07), β = .33, t(295) = 4.40, p < .001; PRAI-

A: B = .37 ( .06), β = .34, t(295) = 5.72, p < .001; PRAI-I: B = .35 ( .07), β = .36, t(295) = 5.39, p

< .001). Model 2 explained an additional 30% of the variance (𝛥R2 = .30, 𝛥F(2, 291) = 115.50, p < .

001), which indicates a high effect value also for perceived received autonomy and intimacy love

expressions on relationship satisfaction. The final model as a whole explained 62% of the variance

in relationship satisfaction (F(4, 291) = 118.99, p < .001).

SAILS as a predictor of attachment orientation. SAILS-I correlated negatively and

strongly with avoidance (r = -.52, p < .001), which supported the second preregistered hypothesis.

Also SAILS-A was associated negatively with avoidance, but this relation showed a more moderate

!36


strength (r = -.38, p < .001). There was a statistically significant difference between the relation of

SAILS-I and avoidance compared with SAILS-A and avoidance (zobs = -2.21).

Hierarchical multiple regression was used to assess the ability of SAILS-I to predict levels

of avoidance after controlling for the influence of SAILS-A. In step 1, avoidance was entered as the

dependent variable and SAILS-A as the independent variable. The results of step 1 yielded

statistically significant regression coefficients for SAILS-A (B = -.43 (.06), β = .38, t(295) = -7.07,

p < .001), and explained 15% of the variance in avoidance (F(1, 294) = 49.95, p < .001). In step 2,

where SAILS-I was added to the equation, another 14% in the variance accounted for was

demonstrated, an 𝛥R2 that was statistically significant (𝛥F(1, 293) = 57.06, p < .001), which supported

the third hypothesis for the main study. In this final model, both measures were statistically

significant, but SAILS-I recorded a substantially higher unstandardized coefficient and beta value

(B = -.68 (-.09), β = -68, t(295) = -7.55, p < .001) than SAILS-A (B = .21 (.10), β = .19, t(295) =

2.06, p = .04). Interestingly, the regression coefficients for SAILS-A also changed from negative to

positive from model 1 to model 2. These results indicated that avoidance goes along with a

tendency to show more autonomy than intimacy promoting behaviors, while the reverse is true for

low avoidance.

An additional exploratory hierarchical multiple regression analysis was undertaken in an 21

attempt to get a better grasp of how both versions of self-initiated and both versions of received

autonomy and intimacy promoting love expressions were associated with avoidance and anxiety

after controlling for avoidance or anxiety. This regression also tested the possibility of an

interaction effect between SAILS-A and SAILS-I on avoidance. Avoidance was the dependent 22

variable, while anxiety was entered as an independent variable in Step 1. SAILS-A and SAILS-I

were included as two independent variables in Step 2. In Step 3, PRAI-A and PRAI-I were added as

another two independent variables, and finally, an interaction term was included in Step 4. The

results revealed that SAILS-I, and both PRAI-A and PRAI-I reached statistical significance as

predictors of avoidance, when controlling for the influence of anxiety. Among the perceived

received love expressions, PRAI-I was a better negative predictor of avoidance than PRAI-A.

Anxiety in the first model explained 25% of the variance found in avoidance. Model 2, which

included both versions of self-initiated love expressions, explained an additional 17% of the

variance in avoidance (𝛥R2 = .17, 𝛥F(2, 292) = 43.00, p < .001), while Model 3, which also included

both versions of perceived received love expressions, added 15% to the explained variance in

avoidance (𝛥R2 = .15, 𝛥F(2, 290) = 49.11, p < .001). In the final model, only SAILS-A did not

See Appendix L for the hierarchical multiple regression summary predicting attachment avoidance.21

Because of the testing of an interaction effect, both SAILS-A and SAILS-I were centered in this analysis.22

!37


statistical significantly predict avoidance. The R2 increased significantly for Step 4 (𝛥R2 = .01, 𝛥F(1,

289) = 4.35, p < .038), suggesting that self-initiated love expressions indeed interacted in predicting

avoidance. The total variance explained by the final model as a whole was 57% (F(6, 289) = 65.38, p

< .001). Thus, avoidance goes along with low levels of expressed intimacy, low levels of perceived

received autonomy support and intimacy promoting behavior from the partner, and a tendency to

promote the partner’s autonomy more than the relationship’s intimacy.

The fourth hypothesis predicted that SAILS-A would show a significant negative correlation

with anxiety. This was supported in the results revealing a negative and moderate association

between self-initiated autonomy promoting love expressions and anxiety (r = -.22, p < .001).

However, SAILS-I also correlated negatively with anxiety (r = -.27, p < .001), and the difference

between the correlations did not differ significantly (zobs = -0,69).

To examine the unique contribution of SAILS-A in the explanation of anxiety, a hierarchical

multiple regression was conducted, now with SAILS-I entered into Step 1, and then SAILS-A being

added in Step 2. Anxiety was the dependent variable. The regression coefficients for SAILS-I

reached statistical significance in Step 1 (B = -.32 (.07), β = -.27, t(295) = -4.87, p < .001,

explaining 7% of the variance in anxiety (F(1, 294) = 23.75, p < .001). In step 2, the inclusion of

SAILS-A did not change the R2 at all (𝛥R2 = .00, 𝛥F(1, 293) = .13, p = 719), a result that did not

support my hypothesis that self-initiated autonomy promoting love expressions would significantly

increase the explained variance anxiety.

An additional hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted again, with the 23

exact same independent variables being added in Step 2 and 3, but now with avoidance in Step 1,

and anxiety as the dependent variable. Here, none of the two self-initiated love expressions nor

PRAI-I were significant predictors of anxiety, when controlling for the influence of avoidance.

Instead, only PRAI-A represented a statistically significant negative predictor of anxiety. The first

model, which included only avoidance, explained 25% of the variance in anxiety, the second model,

which included both versions of SAILS, did not contribute significantly to an R change (𝛥R2= .00,

𝛥F(2, 292) = .21, p = .812), while the third model, which included both versions of PRAI, explained

an additional 6% of the variance in anxiety (𝛥R2= .06, 𝛥F(2, 290) = 11.56, p < .001). In total, the final

model explained 31% of the variance in anxiety (F(5, 290) = 26.04, p < .001). To conclude, anxiety

went along with avoidance and a tendency to perceive receiving less autonomy-support from the

partner.

See Appendix M for the hierarchical multiple regression summary predicting attachment anxiety.23

!38


Kama muta frequency, attachment orientation, relationship satisfaction, and SAILS.

How often participants reported experiencing kama muta within their romantic relationship was

negatively and moderately associated with their level of avoidance (r = -.37, p < .001), supporting

the sixth hypothesis for the main study. Similarly, the seventh hypothesis that kama muta frequency

within the relationship would correlate positively with relationship satisfaction, was supported (r = .

36, p < .001). In order to test the general influence of SAILS-I on relationship satisfaction in kama

muta experiences within the relationship, a preregistered mediation analysis was performed with

kama muta frequency as the independent variable, relationship satisfaction as the dependent, and

SAILS-I as the mediator. Kama muta frequency was entered at Step 1 in the hierarchical multiple

regression, which reached statistical significance (B = .31 (.05), β = .36, t(295) = 6.66, p < .001),

and explained 13% of the variance in relationship satisfaction. SAILS-I also reached statistical

significance in step 2 (B = .43 (.05), β = .48, t(295) = 8.29, p < .001), explaining an additional 17%

of the variance in relationship satisfaction (𝛥R2 = .17, 𝛥F(1, 293) = 68.78, p < .001). The total

variance explained by the model as a whole was 30% (F(2, 293) = 61.66, p < .001).

Figure 3. Path diagram of the mediating role of self-initiated love expressions in explaining the relation between kama muta frequency and relationship satisfaction. Unstandardized coefficients with standard errors in parantheses. The numbers above the highest pathway represents the direct effect, while those below are the effect after including the mediator variable. Note that the figure presents the results of two independent mediation analyses (upper and lower half). ** p < .001.

As depicted in figure x, the effect of kama muta experiences in the romantic relationship on

relationship satisfaction was substantially reduced and became statistically insignificant when

SAILS-I was included in the model (B = .09 (.05), β = .10, t(295) = 1.72, p = .086). A bootstrapping

test of this indirect effect was performed based on the PROCESS macro by Hayes (2017)

generating 5000 bootstrap samples. The results showed a statistical significant indirect effect of β

!39

Relationship Satisfaction

Autonomy-promoting Love Expressions

Intimacy-promoting Love Expressions

Kama Muta

.31 (.05)** .09 (.05)

.21 (05)**

.52 (.05)**

.41 (.04)**

.43 (05)**

.23 (06)**


= .26 with the 95% confidence interval ranging from LLCI = .19 to ULCI = .34 for self-initiated

intimacy promoting love expressions on the relation between kama muta experiences within the

romantic relationship and relationship satisfaction. This demonstrated a complete mediation effect

being present, which supported the seventh hypothesis for the main study, indicating that kama

muta experiences in romantic relationships increase the relationship satisfaction through enactments

of self-initiated intimacy promoting love expressions toward the partner.

This strong mediation effect was not present when SAILS-A was included in the model

instead. Here, in Step 2, kama muta frequency was still statistically significant in predicting

relationship satisfaction even after SAILS-A was included in the equation (B = .21 (.05), β = .25,

t(295) = 4.18, p < .001). However, the bootstrapping test of the indirect effect also here reached

statistical significance, β = .11, LLCI = .05, UPCI = .18, which suggested that a partial mediation

was present, a finding that did not support the last hypothesis in the main study that the indirect

would be non-significant. Model 2 only increased the explained variance in relationship satisfaction

with 4% (𝛥R2 = .04, 𝛥F(1, 293) = 15.21, p < .001), and the model as a whole explained 17% of the

total variance in relationship satisfaction (F(2, 293) = 28.96, p < .001). Hence, both kama muta

frequency and self-initiated autonomy promoting love expressions here predicted relationship

satisfaction.

In summary, the 130 SAILS items were reduced to 50 in order to obtain a comprehensive,

yet manageable valid and reliable measure of self-initiated autonomy- and intimacy-promoting love

expressions in romantic relationships. Reliability analyses showed excellent reliabilities for the

resulting scales, and correlation patterns with pre-existing measures showed encouraging first

evidence of convergent and discriminant validity. Both of the final SAILS scales uniquely predicted

the frequency of kama muta experiences in the relationship, attachment orientation and relationship

satisfaction. The results add to the growing literature on how relationship satisfaction may be

enhanced. First, by highlighting the impact of self-initiated love expressions. Second, by finding

intimacy-promoting love expressions to be more influential to relationship satisfaction than

autonomy-promoting love expressions. Third, by revealing an interaction effect between autonomy-

and intimacy promoting love expressions on relationship satisfaction. And finally, self-initiated

intimacy-promoting love expressions have a particularly powerful potential to evoke kama muta

experiences, and by such affect the relationship satisfaction positively. The current findings

contribute to the understanding of avoidant and anxious individual’s distinct behavioral tendencies

in romantic relationships, by revealing how much they themselves initiate autonomy- and intimacy-

promoting love expressions to their partner. Overall, self-initiated autonomy-promoting love

expressions that are not matched by self-initiated intimacy-promoting love expressions are

!40


indicative of an avoidant individual. The results also point toward the possibility that whom the

initiator of autonomy- or intimacy-promoting love expressions is (insecure individuals or partners

to them), may affect the level of impact they have on the attachment orientation.

General Discussion

A primary goal of this study was to develop an instrument that would measure self-initiated

love expressions in romantic relationships, differentiating between their autonomy and intimacy

promoting potentials. Despite a wide variety of generated items after a thorough investigation of

love expressions in two pilot studies, the vast majority of items outlasting the item scale reduction

and factor analyses belonged to love expressions that were communicated either via words or

physical touch. A few ones belonged to acts, experiences, or sensory attention. No item from the

cluster surprises survived the process toward the final scales. This may be only a technical artifact

of the characteristics of the instrument (i.e., the response categories) and not necessarily represent

any evidence of an immaterial or irrelevant love expression. However, it may in fact reflect that

what individuals do on special occasions or engage in as extraordinary ways to communicate their

love toward their partner, are not what impact the romantic relationship the most. After all, it may

be what individuals do on a frequent and regular basis; daily reminders about the partner’s value

and the relationship’s importance, that has the power to significantly affect the partner’s as well as

one’s own psychological state, sense of security, and relationship satisfaction.

The two final scales that emerged from the exploratory scale analyses were highly internally

consistent and factorially distinct. SAILS-I correlated with established measures of intimacy, which

yielded support for its convergent validity. Since these correlations only were modest to marginally

strong, SAILS-I was still considered being conceptually distinct from the other intimacy measures.

Furthermore, their unique face validity provided evidence for conceptual distinctions since SAILS-I

exclusively featured items about behavioral tendencies rather than cognitively or emotionally

experienced intimacy within the relationship. Discriminant validity was evident in the statistically

significant different correlations between SAILS-I and SAILS-A with the established intimacy

measures, in which SAILS-I correlated significantly stronger with both of them.

The fact that SAILS-A only correlated weakly with other autonomy measures included in

the study, and that these correlations did not differ statistically from SAILS-I’s correlations with

them, may signal that I did not succeed in establishing an instrument measuring self-initiated

autonomy promoting love expressions. Alternatively, it may indicate that each of the included

autonomy instruments in this study measured quite different aspects of autonomy, an explanation

that have support in their low cross-correlations with each other. It should not therefore be too

surprising that their correlation patterns with SAILS-A were not very consistent. Moreover, an

!41


equally plausible explanation is that love expressions in themselves automatically involves some

degree of intimacy promotion, which may drastically differentiate SAILS-A from at least two of the

three other measures that did not encompass any relational dimensions. In light of Self-

Determination’s concept of need for relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2000), Koestner et al.’s (1999)

description of reflective autonomy, and Kant’s (Sensen, 2013) emphasis on autonomy as something

that cannot be achieved without the influence of others, the experience of autonomy in its real sense

may only be complete within a romantic relationship if it is combined with intimacy. Even though

social dependence generally is regarded as incompatible with autonomy, self-evaluations and the

sense of autonomy will paradoxically always be affected by other’s explicit or implicit

communications of one’s social and personal worth (Cuypers, 2001). By such, the low and

inconsistent correlation patterns between SAILS-A and other autonomy measures, does not

necessarily mean that SAILS-A did not entail enough autonomy characteristics, but instead, that

relational dimensions of the experienced autonomy were absent in the instrument of Autonomous

desire to grow and Autonomous belief in own competence. Similarly, the self-initiated behaviors

that are being measured both in SAILS-A and SAILS-I, reflecting a typical characteristic of

autonomy, may have contributed to their equal associations with those two instruments. Only the

instrument measuring motivational reasons for enacting love expressions (MRA niceties scale)

showed different correlations with SAILS-A and SAILS-I, but then surprisingly, a much stronger

correlation with SAILS-I. It may appear like the intrinsic motivation (reflecting the highest level of

autonomy) for expressing love toward a partner, could only be reached if there exists higher levels

of intimacy between the partners. For this reason, SAILS-I may correlate stronger with the intrinsic

motivations for doing nice things toward the partner than what SAILS-A does, even though the

autonomy promoting love expressions in fact focus on the partner’s individuality and autonomy.

Initially, the high intercorrelations between SAILS-A and SAILS-I represented a latent

serious impediment to the subsequent analyses. However, each scale turned out be unique

contributors as predictors in the multiple regression analyses, providing clear and in most cases

hypotheses-conform patterns. By such, discriminant validity was repeatedly indicated for both

scales, suggesting satisfactory construct validity. Finally, SAILS was deemed to show good

predictive validity since it statistically and significantly was able to predict both relationship

satisfaction and attachment orientation. Summarized, the Self-initiated Autonomy and Intimacy

promoting Love expression Scale (SAILS) demonstrated in this study that it can be used to assess

behavioral tendencies within romantic relationships in a valid and reliable way.

The scales may be criticized for being skewed too much towards particularly resilient people

or being too geared towards positive emotions reflecting untroubled life situations, resulting in low

!42


discrimination of love expressions among unhappy couples. This is indeed a relevant critique if the

instrument should be used in couples therapy or in research that specifically seeks to investigate

functional and powerful love expressions during distressing life situations. On the other hand, this

characteristic may represent a benefit and potential to fill a current problem with current attachment

orientation instruments, highlighted by Fraley et al. (2011), whereby securely attached individuals

are not being distinguished well from another, resulting in negatively skewed distributions. Future

research on attachment orientation should gain from investigating how self-initiated love

expressions may increase the variance among the securely attached individuals in measures.

SAILS as Predictor of Relationship Satisfaction, Kama Muta, and Attachment Orientation

Predictors of relationship satisfaction. The second main objective with this study was to

investigate how the different love expressions contributed to relationship satisfaction in dyads,

kama muta experiences within the romantic relationship, and attachment orientation toward the

partner. Extending previous research that has established that perceived received responsiveness is

essential for healthy relationships (Reis, et al., 2004; Gleason, et al., 2008; Reis & Clark, 2013), this

present study found that self-initiated love expressions given to the partner is an equally strong

predictor as received love expressions, a finding that gave support to the preregistered hypothesis

that SAILS would correlate positively and significantly with relationship satisfaction. However, it

was the self-initiated intimacy promoting love expressions, more specifically, that were uniquely

predicting relationship satisfaction, while surprisingly, self-initiated autonomy promoting love

expressions’ isolated effect on relationship satisfaction was negative. Since SAILS-A correlated

positively and moderately with relationship satisfaction in the initial correlational analysis before

being entered into the multiple regression analysis, the results suggest that SAILS-A shares some

variance with SAILS-I that are essential for relationship satisfaction, and that this aspect needs to be

included, and/or SAILS-A being matched with SAILS-I, for self-initiated autonomy promoting love

expressions to realize their relationship satisfaction potential. This explanation may echo previous

research that has found that a givers’ cognitive structure of a relationship, more specifically the

givers’ desire for a communal versus an exchange relationship with the recipient of a helping act, as

significantly affecting the impact of the helping act (Williamson & Clark, 1989).

In line with the preregistered hypothesis, as well as the results in pilot study 1, the present

study found evidence for kama muta experiences in romantic relationships to increase the

relationship satisfaction, and that this association could be fully explained by the enactments of

intimacy promoting love expressions toward the partner. Together with the subsequent analysis that

found autonomy promoting love expressions to only partially mediate the association between kama

muta experiences in the romantic relationship and relationship satisfaction, these findings lend

!43


support to the Kama Muta Theory, which posits that it is the sudden increase in communal sharing

that sets the kama muta in motion, which in turn generates a sense of commitment to the communal

sharing relationship (Fiske et al., 2019). This should imply that self-initiatied intimacy promoting

love expressions not only in themselves have the power to increase individuals’ relationship

satisfaction, but that their occasional evokings of kama muta represent another layer of affective

devotion and motivation for maintaining the romantic relationship, which in turn affects the

relationship satisfaction positively. Future studies should investigate how both self-initiated and

received intimacy promoting love expressions’ evoking of kama muta experiences affect the view

of the partner and oneself within the romantic relationship.

Predictors of attachment orientation. Previous research has repeatedly found attachment

orientation to be associated with relationship satisfaction. This present study replicated these

findings, revealing avoidance to be a strong predictor of relationship dissatisfaction. What was

especially interesting was that some variables turned out to be unique predictors of the different

attachment orientations. SAILS-I consistently and strongly predicted lower levels of avoidance,

while SAILS-A either was non-significantly or weakly related to higher levels of avoidance. This

pattern was evident even when anxiety was controlled for, and when perceived received autonomy

and intimacy variables were included in the models. This suggests that autonomy promoting love

expressions that are not matched by intimacy promoting love expressions are indicative of an

avoidant individual. This finding corroborates previous research that have highlighted avoidant

individuals’ tendencies to act less prosocially if they fear this will result in more intimacy with the

other (Shaver, Mikulincer, & Cassidy, 2019). However, the present study also extends previous

research by indicating that avoidant individuals indeed give out love expressions to their partner,

but these tend to be more autonomy oriented, which do not appear to contribute to increased

relationship satisfaction on their own.

Interestingly, both perceived received autonomy and intimacy love expressions were

significant negative predictors of avoidance, in which perceived received intimacy was the more

powerful one. Is this where the deteriorating process starts or continues for an individual in a

romantic relationship toward increased avoidance? If individuals receive little intimacy promoting

love expressions or experience being rejected when giving out intimacy promoting love

expressions, they might get hurt and distance themselves emotionally (and physically) from the

partner in an attempt to not get hurt again. Alternatively, or maybe as a consequence of this process,

these findings reflect partners that have detected their partners’ insecurities, developed chronic

vigilance about upsetting them, and by such reduced the frequency of intimacy promoting love

expressions as a strategy to avoid emotional reactions and conflict, an explanation that would be in

!44


line with the model of interpersonal insecurity compensation (Lemay & Dudle, 2011). Finally, the

findings may have their roots in negative biases, which have been reported among insecurely

attached in previous studies, where avoidant individuals have shown a tendency to underreport the

level of received support from their partners (Shallcross, Howland, Bernis, Simpson, & Frazier,

2011), or to interpret their partner’s support as non-voluntarily given (Beck & Clark, 2010).

The present study did not find the same pattern among the anxious individuals. The

preregistered hypothesis that the variance explained in anxiety would demonstrate a significant

change when SAILS-A was added to the equation, was not supported. Instead, it turned out to be

only the level of perceived received autonomy love expressions that significantly could predict

anxiety, after controlling for avoidance. Here, lower levels of perceived received autonomy love

expressions from partner was associated with higher levels of anxiety. The current findings thus

point toward distinct behavioral tendencies among avoidant and anxious individuals in romantic

relationships, and the possibility that whom the initiator of autonomy or intimacy promoting love

expressions is, affect the impact they have on the attachment orientation.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

There are several limitations in both pilot studies and in the main study, which should

provide directions for future research. In Pilot Study 1, the sample size was relatively small.

Moreover, the adapted version of 5LLPP displayed somewhat lower reliability levels. This may

indicate that the adaption of the scales lowered the original instrument's reliability (which was

unknown), or reflect what one participant commented: that it was hard rank-ordering love-

languages. In general, ipsative measures are problematic because of their measurement dependency,

which violates one of the basic assumptions of independent error variance. This may have affected

the statistical analyses of the rank-ordered scores, as well as the interpretations of the results.

Pilot Study 2 involved few participants, and was executed without a transcription which is

often depicted as a desirable step in qualitative research (Creswell, 2007). The results and

discussion therefore should be read accordingly. Furthermore, the pilot study relied entirely on

retrospective accounts of love expressions in the participants’ romantic relationships. Although all

participants were able to describe various ways of expressing love concretized with a wealth of

examples, and also to explain why they considered some of them to be more essential for

relationship satisfaction than others, they may have been affected by their recent experiences of

love expressions and momentary relationship satisfaction. In order to gain a more accurate

depiction of love expressions in romantic relationships, future research should collect diaries of

individuals’ engagement in love expressions and reflections upon their effects over a longer period

of time. Another limitation was that the whole sample of participants were recruited from

!45


Scandinavia; individualistic countries characterized by relatively strong economies, democracy, and

egalitarianism. Hence, the present findings and interpretations from the interviews unfolded against

the backdrop of the participants’ socio-cultural context, and by such they can not automatically be

generalized to other populations. A final limitation of Pilot Study 2 was that participants were

generally in high-functioning relationships. Overall, this was good because it contributed to an

understanding of how the participants made them work, but I can’t exclude that poorly functioning

couples need interim steps before being able to tackle more advanced parts.

In the Main Study, the convergent and discriminant validity tests of SAILS-A generated

somewhat inconclusive results. These should therefore be further assessed in future studies.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis should then also be conducted to confirm the factorial structures of

both scales in SAILS. Also, the generalizability of the findings is limited to the fact that only

individuals from Western countries participated in the Main Study. Future research may benefit

from demonstrating SAILS’ usefulness in more diverse samples.

It was beyond the scope of the present studies to examine how age, gender, and/or

relationship duration were associated with the relevant measures. Furthermore, I did not investigate

couples in these studies, which represents a huge drawback, partly because the self-reported levels

of both self-initiated and received love expressions could not be compared with the reported levels

from the partner. It also removed the ability to examine the self-initiated love expressions’ impact

on the partner’s sense of autonomy and intimacy, as well as the partner’s experience of kama muta

frequency, attachment orientation, and relationship satisfaction. It would be useful to know how the

dyadic interactive processes unfold when love expressions are being initiated regularly and over

time.

Furthermore, no data regarding detrimental processes within the romantic relationship was

collected in the current studies, as intended. However, it is highly probable that the self-initiated

love expressions’ impact on kama muta frequency, attachment orientation and relationship

satisfaction depend on the amount of negative communication and level of conflict severity in a

romantic relationship. If future research investigates how these processes interact, a more complete

understanding may be gained on love expressions’s function and impact on romantic relationships.

Finally, to further steer clear of the inevitable limitations of cross-correlational designs,

future research should utilize longitudinal approaches, to tease out potential causal directions

between self-initiated love expressions, perceived received autonomy and intimacy love

expressions, attachment orientation and relationship satisfaction.

Conclusion

!46


Believing that a conversation partner likes us makes us behave particularly friendly towards

them, which in turn makes them indeed like us more (Curtis & Miller, 1986). Could this type of

self-fulfilling prophecy also help maintain couples’ love for months, years and decades? And if so,

which behaviors seem to be particularly relevant for this positive dynamic to play out? A thorough

literature search revealed a wealth of material for approaching this question but no specific

empirical findings, and no good measurement instrument. Love has predominantly been

conceptualized as a disposition to feel, perceive and think more than to act, and accordingly, the

instruments measure it on a rather high, abstract level rather than in terms of concrete, daily

behavior.

However, the literature did suggest distinguishing between behaviors maintaining the

intimacy in the relationship and behaviors supporting the partner in their goals outside the

relationship. This distinction seemed to map onto another important distinction in relationship

science: that between feeling securely attached to one’s partner, using them as a safe haven in times

of distress and a secure base to tackle new challenges, and being insecurely attached, lacking either

or both of these functions. Thus, I also wanted to illuminate in which ways people who cannot use

their relationship as a safe haven; avoidantly attached individuals, could dare more intimacy.

Conversely, what can people who cannot use their relationship as a secure base; anxiously attached

individuals, do to develop more autonomy? Might the key lie in providing a secure base for the

partner, strengthening their autonomy in order to gain a greater sense of autonomy themselves?

I explored which behaviors are most indicative of happy relationships and attachment

security in a quantitative and a qualitative pilot study, examining seemingly small, daily acts like

smiling and hugging to more substantial acts like throwing a surprise party. These studies revealed

that people express their love in many different ways, and that some of these ways, like touching,

seemed to be more important for the relationship than others. From the interviews, I derived 79

intimacy-promoting and 51 autonomy-promoting love expressions.

In the main study, 296 participants responded on how often they engaged in each of the 130

behaviors within their relationship, in which relevant measures were obtained to answer the

research questions for the thesis. In particular, I wanted to compare the role of self-initiated

behavior with partner-initiated behavior: Are people happy in their relationship because their

partner does nice things for them, or also because they themselves do nice things for their partner?

In an iterative process, I constructed two scales to measure autonomy- and intimacy-promoting love

expressions from the 130 questions. I discovered that the self-initiated intimacy-promoting (but not

autonomy-promoting) behaviors as well as the partner-initiated behaviors were uniquely associated

with relationship satisfaction. I also found that avoidant individuals indeed express intimacy less

!47


frequently than securely attached individuals. For anxious attachment, no consistent pattern

emerged. Thus, helping avoidant individuals 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.

A further question throughout this thesis was the contribution of kama muta to relationship

satisfaction and the concrete, behavioral manifestations. Based on the current theorizing, I expected

relationship satisfaction, secure attachment and intimacy-promoting behavior frequency to be

related to more frequent and more intense kama muta experiences in the relationship. The main

study corroborated these assumptions. Thus, the positive emotion of kama muta seems to reinforce

the promotion of intimacy in relationships, thus increasing satisfaction and devotion. This points to

a further possibility for intervention: helping avoidantly attached or unsatisfied persons make room

for feelings of kama muta, evoking them, paying attention to them and enjoying them, can be an

emotional route to increasing satisfaction and security.

!48


References

Ackerman, J. M., Griskevicius, V., & Li, N. P. (2011). Let’s get serious: Communicating

commitment in romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

100(6), 1079–1094. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022412

Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1986). Love and the expansion of self: Understanding attraction and

satisfaction. New York, NY: Hemisphere.

Aron, E. N., & Aron, A. (1996). Love and the expansion of self: The state of the model. Personal

Relationships, 3, 45–58.

Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the Structure

of Interpersonal Closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596–612.

Aron, A., Fisher, H., Mashek, D. J., Strong, G., Li, H., & Brown, L. L. (2005). Reward, Motivation,

and Emotion Systems Associated With Early-Stage Intense Romantic Love. Journal of

Neurophysiology, 94(1), 327–337. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00838.2004

Aron, A., Paris, M., & Aron, E. N. (1995). Falling in love: Prospective studies of self-concept

change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(6), 1102-1112.

Arriaga, X. B., & Kumashiro, M. (2019). Walking a security tightrope: Relationship-induced

changes in attachment security. Current Opinion in Psychology, 25, 121–126. https://

doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.04.016

Arriaga, X. B., Kumashiro, M., Finkel, E. J., VanderDrift, L. E., & Luchies, L. B. (2014). Filling the

Void: Bolstering Attachment Security in Committed Relationships. Social Psychological

and Personality Science, 5(4), 398–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550613509287

Aspelmeier, J. E., & Kerns, K. A. (2003). Love and school: Attachment/exploration dynamics in

college. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20, 5–30.

Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and communion in Western man.

Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Baumeister, R. F., & Bratslavsky, E. (1999). Passion, Intimacy, and Time: Passionate Love as a

Function of Change in Intimacy. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(1), 49–67.

https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0301_3

Baxter, L. A. (1988). A dialectical perspective on communication strategies in relationship

development. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships, 257–273. New York:

Wiley.

Beck, L. A., & Clark, M. S. (2010). Looking a gift horse in the mouth as a defense against

increasing intimacy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(4), 676–679. https://

doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.02.006

!49


Ben-Ari, A., & Lavee, Y. (2007). Dyadic closeness in marriage: From the inside story to a

conceptual model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(5), 627–644. https://

doi.org/10.1177/0265407507081451

Berk, L. E. (2013). Child development, 9th Edition. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Berscheid, E. (2010). Love in the Fourth Dimension. Annual Review of Psychology, 61(1), 1–25.

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100318

Berscheid, E., & Walster, E.H. (1978). Interpersonal attraction (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison

Wesley.

Birnbaum, G. E., & Reis, H. T. (2019). Evolved to be connected: The dynamics of attachment and

sex over the course of romantic relationships. Current Opinion in Psychology, 25, 11–15.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.02.005

Birnbaum, G. E., Reis, H. T., Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., & Orpaz, A. (2006). When sex is more

than just sex: attachment orientations, sexual experience, and relationship quality. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 929-943.

Birtchnell, J. (1993). How humans relate: A new interpersonal theory. London: Praeger.

Blais, M. R., Sabourin, S., Boucher, C., & Vallerand, R. J. (1990). Toward a Motivational Model of

Couple Happiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 1021–1031.

Bombar, M. L., & Littig, L. W., Jr. (1996). Babytalk as a communication of intimate attachment: An

initial study in adult romances and friendships. Personal Relationships, 3, 137–158.

Bowlby, J. (1969/1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment (2nd ed.). New York: Basic

Books. (Original work published 1969)

Bowlby, J. (1979). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. London: Tavistock.

Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: 1 : Attachment (2nd ed., Vol. 1). Basic Books.

Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. Sage

publications.

Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment:

An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and

close relationships, 46–76. New York: Guilford Press.

Brunstein, J. C., Dangelmeyer, G., & Schultheiss, O. C. (1996). Personal goals and social support in

close relationships: Effects on relationship mood and marital satisfaction. Journal of


Caldwell-Harris, C., Kronrod, A., & Yang, J. (2013). Do more, say less: Saying “I love you” in

Chinese and American cultures. Intercultural Pragmatics, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/

ip-2013-0002

!50


Chapman, G. (2015). The five love languages: The secret to love that lasts. Chicago, IL: Northfield.

(Original work published 1992)

Chatel-Goldman, J., Congedo, M., Jutten, C., & Schwartz, J.-L. (2014). Touch increases autonomic

coupling between romantic partners. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 8. https://

doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00095

Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a New General Self-Efficacy Scale.

Organizational Research Methods, 4(1), 62–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810141004

Chen, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Beyers, W., Boone, L., Deci, E. L., Van der Kaap-Deeder, J.,… &

Ryan, R. M. (2015). Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need

strength across four cultures. Motivation and Emotion, 39(2), 216-236.

Cohen, J., & Manning, W. (2010). The relationship context of premarital serial cohabitation. Social

Science Research, 39(5), 766–776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.04.011

Coan, J. A., Schaefer, H. S., & Davidson, R. J. (2006). Lending a hand: Social regulation of the

neural response to threat. Psychological Science, 17, 1032-1039. doi:10.1111/j.1467-

9280.2006.01832.x

Collins, N. L., & Miller, L. C. (1994). Self-Disclosure and Liking: A Meta-Analytic Review.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches

(2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.

Cropley, C. J., & Reid, S. A. (2008). A Latent Variable Analysis of Couple Closeness, Attributions,

and Relational Satisfaction. The Family Journal, 16(4), 364–374. https://doi.org/

10.1177/1066480708322806

Curtis, R. C., & Miller, K. (1986). Believing another likes or dislikes you: Behaviors making the

beliefs come true. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(2), 284–290. https://

doi.org/

Cuypers, S. E. (2001). Self-identity and personal autonomy: An analytical anthropology. Ashgate

Publishing.

Debrot, A., Schoebi, D., Perrez, M., & Horn, A. B. (2013). Touch as an interpersonal emotion

regulation process in couples’ daily lives: the mediating role of psychological intimacy.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior.

New York: Plenum Press.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The Support of Autonomy and the Control of Behavior. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(6), 1024–1037.

!51


Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the

self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.

Drigotas, S. M., Rusbult, C. E., Wieselquist, J., & Whitton, S. W. (1999). Close partner as sculptor

of the ideal self: Behavioral affirmation and the Michelangelo phenomenon. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 293–323. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.2.293

Emery, L. F., Walsh, C., & Slotter, E. B. (2015). Knowing Who You Are and Adding to It: Reduced

Self-Concept Clarity Predicts Reduced Self-Expansion. Social Psychological and

Personality Science, 6(3), 259–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614555029

Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.

Farrell, A. K., Simpson, J. A., Overall, N. C., & Shallcross, S. L. (2016). Buffering the responses of

avoidantly attached romantic partners in strain test situations. Journal of Family Psychology,

30(5), 580–591. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000186

Feeney, J. A. (1999). Adult romantic attachment and couple relationships. In J. Cassidy & P. R.

Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications, 355–

377. New York: Guilford Press.

Feeney, B. C. (2004). A Secure Base: Responsive Support of Goal Strivings and Exploration in

Adult Intimate Relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(5), 631–

648. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.5.631

Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2004). Feeney, Collins. 2004. Interpersonal Safe Haven and Secure

Base Caregiving Processes in Adulthood.pdf.

Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2015). A New Look at Social Support: A Theoretical Perspective on

Thriving Through Relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(2), 113–

147. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314544222

Feeney, B. C., Collins, N. L., Van Vleet, M., & Tomlinson, J. M. (2013). Motivations for providing

a secure base: Links with attachment orientation and secure base support behavior.

Attachment & Human Development, 15(3), 261–280. https://doi.org/

10.1080/14616734.2013.782654

Feeney, B. C., & Thrush, R. L. (2010). Relationship influences on exploration in adulthood: The

characteristics and function of a secure base. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

98(1), 57–76. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016961

Fiske, A. P. (1991). Structures of social life: The four elementary forms of human relations. New

York, NY: Free Press.

Fiske. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality Framework for a unified theory of social

relations.pdf.

!52


Fiske, A. P., Schubert, T. W., & Seibt, B. (2017). ”Kama muta” or ’being moved by love’: A

bootstrapping approach to the ontology and epistemology of an emotion. In J. Cassaniti &

U. Menon (Eds.), Universalism without uniformity: Explorations in mind and culture,

79-100. University of Chicago Press. Doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226501710.001.0001

Fiske, A. P., Seibt, B., & Schubert, T. (2019). The Sudden Devotion Emotion: Kama Muta and the

Cultural Practices Whose Function Is to Evoke It. Emotion Review, 11(1), 74–86. https://

doi.org/10.1177/1754073917723167

Floyd, K., Hess, J. A., Miczo, L. A., Halone, K. K., Mikkelson, A. C., & Tusing, K. J. (2005).

Human affection exchange: VIII. Further evidence of the benefits of expressed affection.

Communication Quarterly, 53, 285–303.

Fraley, R. C., Heffernan, M. E., Vicary, A. M., & Brumbaugh, C. C. (2011). The experiences in

close relationships—Relationship Structures Questionnaire: A method for assessing

attachment orientations across relationships. Psychological Assessment, 23(3), 615–625.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022898

Gaine, G. S., & La Guardia, J. G. (2009). The unique contributions of motivations to maintain a

relationship and motivations toward relational activities to relationship well-being.

Motivation and Emotion, 33(2), 184–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-009-9120-x

Gallace, A., & Spence, C. (2010). The science of interpersonal touch: An overview. Neuroscience &

Biobehavioral Reviews, 34, 246-259. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2008.10.004

Gleason, M. E. J., Iida, M., Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2008). Receiving support as a mixed

blessing: Evidence for dual effects of support on psychological outcomes. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 94(5), 824–838. https://doi.org/

10.1037/0022-3514.94.5.824

Graham, J. M., & Harf, M. R. (2015). Self-expansion and flow: The roles of challenge, skill, affect,

and activation: Self-expansion and flow. Personal Relationships, 22(1), 45–64. https://

doi.org/10.1111/pere.12062

Grote, N. K., & Frieze, I. H. (1998). Remembrance of things past: Perceptions of marital love from

its beginnings to the present. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(1), 91–109.

Guay, F., Ratelle, C. F., Roy, A., & Litalien, D. (2010). Academic self-concept, autonomous

academic motivation, and academic achievement: Mediating and additive effects. Learning

and Individual Differences, 20(6), 644–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.08.001

Gulledge, A., Gulledge, M., & Stahmannn, R. (2003). Romantic physical affection types and

relationship satisfaction. American Journal of Family Therapy, 31, 233–242.

!53


Guzzo, K. B. (2014). Trends in Cohabitation Outcomes: Compositional Changes and Engagement

Among Never-Married Young Adults: Trends in Cohabitation Outcomes. Journal of

Marriage and Family, 76(4), 826–842. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12123

Harlow, H. F. (1959). Love in infant monkeys. Scientific American, 200, 68–86.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic Love Conceptualized as an Attachment Process. 14.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Attachment as an Organizational Framework for Research on

Close Relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5(1), 1–22. JSTOR. http://www.jstor.org/stable/

1449075

Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis,

Second Edition: A regression-based approach. Guilford publications.

Henry, N. J. M., Smith, T. W., Butner, J., Berg, C. A., Sewell, K. K., & Uchino, B. N. (2015).

Marital quality, depressive symptoms, and the metabolic syndrome: A couples structural

model. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 38(3), 497–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/

s10865-015-9619-4

Hodgins, H. S., Koestner, R., & Duncan, N. (1996). On the compatibility of autonomy and

relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 227–237. doi:10.1177/

0146167296223001.

Hodgins, H. S., & Liebeskind, E. (2003). Apology versus defence: Antecedents and consequences.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 297-316. doi:10.1016/S0022-

1031(03)00024-6

Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H. (1967). The Social Readjustment Rating Scale. Journal of

Psychosomatic Research, 11(2), 213–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3999(67)90010-4

Huang, X. T., & Che, L. P. (2003). Confidence and how to cultivate it [In Chinese]. Beijing, China:

Xinhua Publishing House.

Johnson, D. R., & Wu, J. (2002). An Empirical Test of Crisis, Social Selection, and Role

Explanations of the Relationship Between Marital Disruption and Psychological Distress: A

Pooled Time-Series Analysis of Four-Wave Panel Data. Journal of Marriage and Family,

64(1), 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00211.x

Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 32-36.

Kaplan, M., & Maddux, J. E. (2002). Goals and Marital Satisfaction: Perceived Support for

Personal Goals and Collective Efficacy for Collective Goals. Journal of Social and Clinical

Psychology, 21(2), 157–164. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.21.2.157.22513

!54

https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/0022-3999(67)90010-4


Kennedy, S., & Ruggles, S. (2014). Breaking Up Is Hard to Count: The Rise of Divorce in the

United States, 1980–2010. Demography, 51(2), 587–598. https://doi.org/10.1007/

s13524-013-0270-9

Koestner, R., Gingras, I., Abutaa, R., Losier, G. F., DiDio, L., & Gagne ́, M. (1999). To follow

expert advice when making a decision: An examination of reactive versus reflective

autonomy. Journal of Personality, 67, 851–872. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00075.

Koestner, R., & Losier, G. F. (1996). Distinguishing reactive versus reflective autonomy. Journal of

Personality, 64, 465-494. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00518.x

Legault, L. (2016). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In V. Zeigler-Hill, T. K. Shackelford (eds),

Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences, doi:

10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_1120-1

Lemay, E. P., & Clark, M. S. (2008). “Walking on eggshells”: How expressing relationship

insecurities perpetuates them. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(2), 420–

441. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.2.420

Lemay, E. P., & Dudley, K. L. (2011). Caution: Fragile! Regulating the interpersonal security of

chronically insecure partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(4), 681–

702. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021655

Li, T., & Chan, D. K.-S. (2012). How anxious and avoidant attachment affect romantic relationship

quality differently: A meta-analytic review: Adult attachment and relationship quality.

European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(4), 406–419. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1842

Ling, H., Luo, Y.-M., & Zhang, J.-R. (2013). Relationship between self-supporting behaviors and

self-concept among primary school students in China. Social Behavior and Personality: An

International Journal, 41(8), 1245–1251. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2013.41.8.1245

Lucas, R. E. (2005). Time Does Not Heal All Wounds: A Longitudinal Study of Reaction and

Adaptation to Divorce. Psychological Science, 16(12), 945–950. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.

1467-9280.2005.01642.x

Main, M. (1990). Cross-cultural studies of attachment organization: Recent studies, changing

methodologies, and the concept of conditional strategies. Human Development, 33, 48–61.

Marigold, D. C., Holmes, J. G., & Ross, M. (2007). More than words: Reframing compliments from

romantic partners fosters security in low self-esteem individuals. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 92(2), 232–248. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.232

Markman, H. J., Stanley, S., & Blumberg, S. L. (1994). Fighting for your marriage: Positive steps

for preventing divorce and preserving a lasting love. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being (2nd ed.). New York: Van Nostrand.

!55


Mattingly, B. A., Lewandowski, G. W. Jr., & McIntyre, K. P. (2014). “You make me a better/ worse

person”: A two-dimensional model of relationship self-change. Personal Relationships, 19,

113–127.

McAdams, D. P. (1988). Power, intimacy, and the life story. New York: The Guilford Press.

McKinnon, J. M., & Greenberg, L. S. (2017). Vulnerable Emotional Expression In Emotion

Focused Couples Therapy: Relating Interactional Processes To Outcome. Journal of Marital

and Family Therapy, 43(2), 198–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12229

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2003). The Attachment Behavioral System In Adulthood:

Activation, Psychodynamics, And Interpersonal Processes. In Advances in Experimental

Social Psychology, 35, 53–152. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(03)01002-5

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change.

Guilford Press.

Moss, B. F., & Schwebel, A. I. (1993). Defining Intimacy in Romantic Relationships. Family

Relations, 42(1), 31. https://doi.org/10.2307/584918

Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Murray, A. J., & Hazelwood, Z. J. (2011). Being Grateful: Does it Bring Us Closer? Gratitude,

Attachment and Intimacy in Romantic Relationships. Journal of Relationships Research,

2(1), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1375/jrr.2.1.17

Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., Aloni, M., Pinkus, R. T., Derrick, J. L., & Leder, S. (2009).

Commitment insurance: Compensating for the autonomy costs of interdependence in close

relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 256–278. doi:10.1037/

a0014562

Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996). The benefits of positive illusions:

Idealization and the construction of satisfaction in close relationships. Journal of


Neff, L. A., and Karney, B. R. (2002). Judgments of a relationship partner: specific accuracy but

global enhancement. Journal of Personality, 70, 1079–1112. doi: 10.1111/1467- 6494.05032

Overall, N. C., & Simpson, J. A. (2015). Attachment and dyadic regulation processes. Current

Opinion in Psychology, 1, 61–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2014.11.008

Parks, M. R., & Floyd, K. (1996). Meanings for closeness and intimacy in friendship. Journal of

Social and Personal Relationships, 13, 85–107.

Park, Y., Impett, E. A., MacDonald, G., & Lemay, E. P. (2019). Saying “thank you”: Partners’

expressions of gratitude protect relationship satisfaction and commitment from the harmful

!56


effects of attachment insecurity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://

doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000178

Parker, T. S., Blackburn, K. M., Perry, M. S., & Hawks, J. M. (2013). Sexting as an Intervention:

Relationship Satisfaction and Motivation Considerations. The American Journal of Family

Therapy, 41(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2011.635134

Patterson, M. L. (1984). Intimacy, social control, and nonverbal involvement: A functional

approach. In V. J. Derlega (Ed.). Communication, intimacy, and close relationships, 13-42.

New York: Academic Press.

Paul, E. L., McManus, B., & Hayes, A. (2000). “Hookups”: characteristics and correlates of college

students’ spontaneous and anonymous sexual experiences. Journal of Sexual Research, 37,

76-88.

Pistole, M. C. (1994). Adult attachment styles: Some thoughts on closeness–distance struggles.

Family Process, 33, 147–159.

Reis, H. T., & Clark, M. S. (2013). Responsiveness. In J. Simpson & L. Campbell (Eds.), The

Oxford handbook of close relationships, 400– 423. New York, NY: Oxford Press.

Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., & Holmes, J. G. (2004). Perceived partner responsiveness as an

organizing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In D. J. Mashek & A. Aron

(Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy, 201–225. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Reis, H. T., Maniaci, M. R., & Rogge, R. D. (2014). The expression of compassionate love in

everyday compassionate acts. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31(5), 651–

676. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407513507214

Reis, H. T., Maniaci, M. R., & Rogge, R. D. (2017). Compassionate acts and everyday emotional

well-being among newlyweds. Emotion, 17(4), 751–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/

emo0000281

Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S. Duck & D. F. Hay

(Eds.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research, and interventions, 367-389.

Chichester, England: Wiley.

Roberts, T. W. (1992). Sexual attraction and romantic love: forgotten variables in marital therapy.

Journal of Marital Family Therapy, 18, 357–64.

Robitschek, C., Ashton, M. W., Spering, C. C., Geiger, N., Byers, D., Schotts, G. C., & Thoen, M.

A. (2012). Development and psychometric evaluation of the Personal Growth Initiative

Scale–II. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59(2), 274–287. https://doi.org/10.1037/

a0027310

!57


Røysamb, E., Vittersø, J., & Tambs, K. (2014). The Relationship Satisfaction scale – Psychometric

properties. Norsk Epidemiologi, 24(1–2). https://doi.org/10.5324/nje.v24i1-2.1821

Sbarra, D. A., & Nietert, P. J. (2009). Divorce and Death: Forty Years of the Charleston Heart Study.

Psychological Science, 20(1), 107–113. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02252.x

Schachner D. A., & Shaver, P. R. (2002). Attachment style and human mate poaching. New Review

of Social Psychology, 1,122-129.

Seibt, B., Schubert, T. W., Zickfeld, J. H., & Fiske, A. P. (2017). Interpersonal closeness and

morality predict feelings of being moved. Emotion, 17(3), 389–394. https://doi.org/10.1037/

emo0000271

Sensen, O. (2012). Kant on moral autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/

CBO9780511792489

Shallcross, S. L., Howland, M., Bemis, J., Simpson, J. A., & Frazier, P. (2011). Not “capitalizing”

on social capitalization interactions: The role of attachment insecurity. Journal of Family

Psychology, 25(1), 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021876

Shaver, P. R., Mikulincer, M., & Cassidy, J. (2019). Attachment, caregiving in couple relationships,

and prosocial behavior in the wider world. Current Opinion in Psychology, 25, 16–20.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.02.009

Showers, C. J., Ditzfeld, C. P., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2015). Self-Concept Structure and the Quality of

Self-Knowledge: Self-Knowledge. Journal of Personality, 83(5), 535–551. https://doi.org/

10.1111/jopy.12130

Song, H., Zhang, Y., Zuo, L., Chen, X., Cao, G., d’Oleire Uquillas, F., & Zhang, X. (2019).

Improving Relationships by Elevating Positive Illusion and the Underlying Psychological

and Neural Mechanisms. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/

fnhum.2018.00526

Spielmann, S. S., Maxwell, J. A., MacDonald, G., & Baratta, P. L. (2013). Don’t Get Your Hopes

Up: Avoidantly Attached Individuals Perceive Lower Social Reward When There Is

Potential for Intimacy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(2), 219–236. https://

doi.org/10.1177/0146167212472541

Sprecher, S., & Fehr, B. (2005). Compassionate love for close others and humanity. Journal of

Social and Personal Relationships, 22(5), 629–651. https://doi.org/

10.1177/0265407505056439

Sprecher, S., Fehr, B., & Zimmerman, C. (2007). Expectation for Mood Enhancement as a Result of

Helping: The Effects of Gender and Compassionate Love. Sex Roles, 56(7–8), 543–549.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9192-6

!58


Steinnes, K. K., Blomster, J. K., Seibt, B., Zickfeld, J. H., & Fiske, A. P. (2019). Too Cute for

Words: Cuteness Evokes the Heartwarming Emotion of Kama Muta. Frontiers in

Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00387

Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93, 119–135.

Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Construct validation of a triangular love scale. European Journal of Social

Psychology, 27(3), 313–335. https://doi.org/10.1002/

(SICI)1099-0992(199705)27:3<313::AID-EJSP824>3.0.CO;2-4

Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton.

Tomlinson, J. M., Feeney, B. C., & Van Vleet, M. (2016). A longitudinal investigation of relational

catalyst support of goal strivings. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 11(3), 246–257.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2015.1048815

van Anders, S. M., Edelstein, R. S., Wade, R. M., & Samples-Steele, C. R. (2013). Descriptive

Experiences and Sexual vs. Nurturant Aspects of Cuddling between Adult Romantic

Partners. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42(4), 553–560. https://doi.org/10.1007/

s10508-012-0014-8

Waring, E. M. (1988). Enhancing marital intimacy through facilitating cognitive self-disclosure.

New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Whisman, M. A., & Uebelacker, L. A. (2006). Impairment and distress associated with relationship

discord in a national sample of married or cohabiting adults. Journal of Family Psychology,

20(3), 369–377. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.20.3.369

Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The interpersonal

domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 395–412.

Williamson, G. M., & Clark, M. S. (1989). Providing Help and Desired Relationship Type as

Determinants of Changes in Moods and Self-Evaluations. 13.

Wilson, K. L., Charker, J., Lizzio, A., Halford, K., & Kimlin, S. (2005). Assessing How Much

Couples Work at Their Relationship: The Behavioral Self-Regulation for Effective

Relationships Scale. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(3), 385–393. https://doi.org/

10.1037/0893-3200.19.3.385

Wolman, J., Campeau, P., Dubois, P., Mithaug, D., & Stolarski, V. (1994). AIR Self-Determination

Scale and user guide. Palo Alto, CA: American Institute for Research.

Wood, J. V., Anthony, D. B., & Foddis, W. F. (2006). Should people with low self-esteem strive for

high self-esteem? In M. H. Kernis (Ed.), Self-esteem issues and answers: A source book of

current perspectives, 288–296. New York: Psychology Press.

!59

https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/17439760.2015.1048815


Zickfeld, J. (2015). Heartwarming Closeness. https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/

10852/48655/1/J-H--Zickfeld-Heartwarming-Closeness-Master-Thesis-2015.pdf

Zickfeld, J. H., Schubert, T. W., Seibt, B., Blomster, J. K., Arriaga, P., Basabe, N.,, … & Fiske, A. P.

(2019). Kama muta: Conceptualizing and measuring the experience often labelled being

moved across 19 nations and 15 languages. Emotion, 19(3), 402–424. https://doi.org/

10.1037/emo0000450

Zickfeld, J. H., Schubert, T. W., Seibt, B., & Fiske, A. P. (2017). Empathic concern is part of a more

general communal emotion. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(723). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00723

!60

https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/emo0000450


Appendix A - Informed Consent Form Quantitative Studies

Are you interested in taking part in the research project ”Love expressions, kama muta, attachment orientation, and relationship satisfaction”?

This is an inquiry about participation in a research project where the main purpose is to gain a better understanding of how some specific factors may affect romantic relationship satisfaction. You will here get some information about the purpose of the project and what your participation will involve.

Purpose of the project This project is part of a Master’s Thesis that seeks to investigate how love expressions within romantic relationships are related to the experience of kama muta (Sanskrit for ”being moved”), to attachment orientation towards partner, and to relationship satisfaction. By achieving a better understanding of how these variables are associated with each other, researchers may extend current existing knowledge on this topic, while couples therapists and romantic couples themselves, may find new concrete ways to improve romantic relationships.

Who is responsible for the research project? The department of Psychology at the University of Oslo, Norway, is the institution responsible for the project. Master student Anette Åbom will execute the research project, with supervision from research leader and professor Beate Seibt.

Why are you being asked to participate? For this project, individuals above 18 years of age who currently are in a romantic relationship have been asked to participate. To obtain a certain level of reliability in the findings, the final analyses will need responses from several hundred individuals.

What does participation involve for you? It will take approximately 20 minutes for you to participate, if you choose to take part in the project. In an online questionnaire you will be asked to answer questions about feelings, thoughts, and behavioral tendencies or preferences, related to your romantic relationship. The answers will be recorded electronically.

Participation is voluntary Participation in the project is voluntary. You can withdraw your consent at any time without giving any reason for it, and without experiencing any negative consequences. All information about you will then be deleted, so long as you can be identified in the collected data, and unless the answers already have been incorporated into analyses or have been published in scientific publications. If you wish to withdraw your consent or have any questions concerning the study, please contact Master student Anette Åbom, [email protected].

Your personal privacy – how we will store and use your personal data • All collected data will be processed without name, ID number, contact details, or other directly

recognizable information. • The online survey providers that will be used to collect and store the anonymous data are:

qualtrics.com and prolific.co. • Your anonymous answers will be merged with the answers of other participants in the project in a

large database. This database may be shared with other researchers, which is a recommended practice within psychological research.

• It will not be possible to identify you in the results of the project when the Master Thesis is disseminated.

Where can I find out more? If you have questions about the project, want to receive information about the results of the project, or want to exercise your rights, contact:

• The Department of Psychology at the University of Oslo via Master student Anette Åbom, [email protected], or supervisor for the research project professor Beate Seibt, [email protected].

!61

mailto:[email protected]

http://qualtrics.com

http://prolific.co




• Our Data Protection Officer: Torgrim Mikal Langleite, [email protected]. • NSD – The Norwegian Centre for Research Data AS, by email: ([email protected]) or by

telephone: +47 55 58 21 17.

Yours sincerely,

Beate Seibt Anette Åbom Project Leader (Supervisor) Student

Appendix B - Informed Consent Form Qualitative Study

Are you interested in taking part in the research project ”Love expressions, kama muta, attachment orientation, and relationship satisfaction”?

This is an inquiry about participation in a research project where the main purpose is to gain a better understanding of how some specific factors may affect romantic relationship satisfaction. You will here get some information about the purpose of the project and what your participation will involve.

Purpose of the project This project is part of a Master’s Thesis that seeks to investigate how individuals in a romantic relationship actively construe situations where they communicate love for their partner, and to explore what these different love expressions signal to their partner. By achieving a better understanding of love expressions, the Master student may develop a love expression scale, researchers may extend current existing knowledge on this topic, and couples therapists and romantic couples themselves may find new concrete ways to improve romantic relationships.

Who is responsible for the research project? The department of Psychology at the University of Oslo, Norway, is the institution responsible for the project. Master student Anette Åbom will execute the research project, with supervision from research leader and professor Beate Seibt.

Why are you being asked to participate? For this project, about 10 individuals above 18 years of age who currently are in a romantic relationship will be needed to participate.

What does participation involve for you? It will take approximately 30 minutes for you to participate, if you choose to take part in the project. During an interview, you will be asked to reflect upon romantic relationships in general, but also to answer questions about how you and your romantic partner express love for each other. You will be asked to elaborate on your feelings, thoughts, and behavioral tendencies or preferences related to these love expressions. The answers will not be audio or video recorded, but the Master student will take notes during the interview. These notes will not include any identifiable information. For example, no names, places, diseases, or time of specific situations will be included in the notes.

Participation is voluntary Participation in the project is voluntary. You can withdraw your consent at any time without giving any reason for it, and without experiencing any negative consequences. All information about you will then be deleted, so long as you can be identified in the collected data, and unless the answers already have been incorporated into analyses or have been published in scientific publications. If you wish to withdraw your consent or have any questions concerning the study, please contact Master student Anette Åbom, [email protected].

!62





Your personal privacy – how we will store and use your personal data We will only use your personal data for the purposes specified in this information letter. We will process your personal data confidentially and in accordance with data protection legislation (the General Data Protection Regulation and Personal Data Act).

• All collected data will be processed without name, ID number, contact details, or other directly recognizable information.

• It will not be possible to identify you in the results of the project when the Master Thesis is disseminated.

• Some background data will be registered for the interviewees, including gender, age, years of education, number of children, relationship duration, and relationship status. These data, however, will be disarranged and stored separately from the rest of the collected data, which means that it will not be able to identify a person through the background data.

• This project will collect digitally signed consent forms or written consent forms with signature. The Master student and the supervisor of the research project, both connected to the Department of Psychology at the University of Oslo, will have access to the digital/written consent forms as long as the project goes on. The digital/written consent forms will be stored on a research server driven by the University of Oslo, until the project is done. As soon as the project is done, all digital/written consent forms will be deleted.

What will happen to your personal data at the end of the research project? The project is scheduled to end by the end of 2020. At the end of the project, all identifiable data will be deleted.

Your rights So long as you can be identified in the collected data, you have the right to:

- access the personal data that is being processed about you - request that your personal data is deleted - request that incorrect personal data about you is corrected/rectified - receive a copy of your personal data (data portability), and - send a complaint to the Data Protection Officer or The Norwegian Data Protection Authority

regarding the processing of your personal data

What gives us the right to process your personal data? We will process your personal data based on your consent.

Based on an agreement with the Department of Psychology at the University of Oslo, NSD – The Norwegian Centre for Research Data AS has assessed that the processing of personal data in this project is in accordance with data protection legislation.

Where can I find out more? If you have questions about the project, want to receive information about the results of the project, or want to exercise your rights, contact:

• The Department of Psychology at the University of Oslo via Master student Anette Åbom, [email protected], or supervisor for the research project professor Beate Seibt, [email protected].

• Our Data Protection Officer: Torgrim Mikal Langleite, [email protected]. • NSD – The Norwegian Centre for Research Data AS, by email: ([email protected]) or by

telephone: +47 55 58 21 17.

Yours sincerely,

Beate Seibt Anette Åbom Project Leader (Supervisor) Student

!63






Appendix C - Methodological Details of Pilot Study 1

Participants. The total sample in Pilot Study 1 initially comprised 159 participants. However, participants were excluded from further analysis if they had completed less than 89% of the survey (n = 63), yielded contradictory responses and/or ”copy-paste”-kama muta descriptions (n = 8), reported not being in a romantic relationship (n = 1), or reported being a test respondent (n = 1). The final sample of 86 participants consisted of 41 males and 45 females, in which 54 (62,8%) of them were recruited from mainly 24

Scandinavian countries and the remaining 32 participants (37,2%) from the United States. Twelve participants (14%) were 18-29 years old, 32 participants (37,2%) were 30-39 years, 26 participants (30,2%) were 40-49 years, and 16 participants (18,6%) were above 50 years of age. Their romantic relationship duration ranged from less than 3 years to more than 11 years (< 3 years: n = 17 (19,8%); 3-5 years: n = 10 (11,6%); 6-10 years: 16 (18,6%); > 11 years: n = 43 (50%)).

Materials. The Experiences in Close Relationships, Relationship Structures Questionnaire (ECR-RS), was chosen since it has been shown to display the highest average reliability (α =.90) of five of the most commonly used self-report measures of adult attachment security, and to be relatively unaffected by characteristics of samples and settings (Graham & Unterschute, 2015). Furthermore, the Relationship Satisfaction scale (RS5) was chosen since it has demonstrated high internal and test-retest reliability (α =.88 for RS5). Also, KAMMUS had been found to have acceptable to excellent reliabilities for the different sections in a study measuring kama muta in 19 countries (Zickfeld, et al., 2019; Sensations: α = .70-.93, Communal Sharing: α = .74-.87, Motivations: α = .72-.91, Labels: α = .55-.96). The 5 Love Languages Personal Profile for couples (5LLPP; Chapman, 2015) was chosen as an instrument for measuring love expressions in pilot study 1 because of its potential to roughly differentiate between autonomy and intimacy promoting love expressions. The love languages model (Chapman, 1992) suggests there are five ways of expressing love: Words of Affirmation, Quality Time, Gifts, Acts of Service, and Physical Touch. The instrument 5LLPP is intended to measure how individuals prefer receiving love from their partner. Ninety percent of participants in a previous study reported that their preferred love language was being accurately identified with this scale (Veale, 2006). However, to my knowledge, there do not exist any reports of reliability measures for the instrument.

Manipulation of data. Five respondents were excluded from kama muta analyses since their description did not represent a kama muta experience (i.e., feeling sad about a relative who had died). Furthermore, all variables in the pilot study went through preliminary analyses to assess whether the assumptions of normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity were met. Since the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic yielded a significant result for some scales, Spearman’s rho was chosen as the statistical measure for analyses of relations between the paired data. Also three extreme outliers were discovered during normality assessment, in which the first (who had the lowest possible score on all items in the kama muta instrument) were

One individual defined his/her gender as ”other”.24

!64


excluded from further kama muta analyses. The two other outliers were changed to two less deviant scores (Tabachnik & Fidell, 2013).

References: Chapman, G. (1992). The five love languages: How to express heartfelt commitment to your mate. Chicago: Northfield

Publishing. Chapman, G. (2015). Love Languages Personal Profile for Couples. Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws .com/moody-

profiles/uploads/profile/attachment/5/5LLPersonalProfile_COUPLES__1_.pdf Graham, J. M. & Unterschute, M. S. (2015) A reliabiity generalization meta-analysis of self-report measures of adult

attachment. Journal of Personality Assessment, 97(1), 31-41. 10.1080/00223891.2014.927768 Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics. 6th edition. Boston: Pearson Education. Veale, S. L. (2006). How do I love thee? An investigation of Chapman’s five love languages. (Doctoral dissertation).

Capella University, Minneapolis, MN. Retrieved from http://bigfatresearchpaper.blogspot.com/2008/02/new-source-how-do-i- love-thee.html

Zickfeld, J. H., Schubert, T. W., Seibt, B., Blomster, J. K., Arriaga, P., Basabe, N.,, … & Fiske, A. P. (2019). Kama muta: Conceptualizing and measuring the experience often labelled being moved across 19 nations and 15 languages. Emotion, 19(3), 402–424. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000450

Appendix D - Examples of Kama Muta Descriptions in Pilot Study 1

One specific situation:

”She put her arm around me during the sermon at church, something she rarely does.” (Male, 40-49 years old)

”A declaration of love on social media from my husband.” (Female, 40-49 years old)

Several situations:

”I came home from working and my wife offered to help pick up hay with me. She never goes outside to work on the farm. She helped pick up hay all day in the 103 degree heat. Afterwards she made dinner and told me how much she appreciated me and loved me.” (Male, 50+ years old)

”When my partner said I was cute in a couple of shorts I was wearing and my partner caressed my thighs.” (Male, 30-39 years old)

”I was moved when my husband told me how much he loved spending time with me when we went shopping together. To some, shopping may be regular but when you have kids, going shopping together is very precious and special.” (Female, 30-39 years old)

Partner or relationship characteristics:

”Whenever I think of how my partner has been there for me and how my partner has helped me move forward with myself and my life.” (Female, 18-29 years old)

”By seeing how my partner's choices and priorities create a better situation for my children and our family situation. No matter what stress level and other things, she keeps the family together. That moves me.”

!65

https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/emo0000450


(Male, 30-39 years old)

”She understands me very well. Makes me feel comfortable.” (Male, 40-49 years old)

2nd person kama muta:

”My fiancee is an over the road truck driver so he’s gone most of the week. One week we were having a neighborhood meeting and everyone was on the porch at my house. My fiancee wasn’t supposed to make it home until later that night. Just as the meeting started he pulled into the driveway. He had rushed home to be there because he knows how important it is to me to be neighborly. I remember getting goosebumps and butterflies. We’ve been together so long that it’s nice to know we still have that excitement.” (Female, 40-49 years old)

”On my birthday, my partner showed that he/she really appreciated me. I got an experience box of 12 cards where I could use 1 card each month throughout the year. This is one of the biggest declarations of love I have received during 27 years of marriage, and it touches me even now when I write about it.” (Male, 50+ years old)

”I got a bit emotional and felt tears in my eyes when I saw my partner was emotional. He was reflecting on our relationship and my character. He was complimenting me on my good nature and heart. When he became visibly emotional, I involuntarily teared up in response. I felt warm, happy, and very content in that moment.” (Female, 40-49 years old)

”My husband arranging my babyshower.” (Female, 18-29 years old)

”A simple note left for me when my partner had to leave unexpectedly.” (Male, 50+ years old)

1st person kama muta:

”He was touched by the fact that I sang a song to him on a special occasion. It touched me to see that he was touched and that he afterwards said that it was very cozy and touching.” (Female, 40-49 years old)

3rd person kama muta:

”I am touched when I see and hear my husband together with my children, in situations where he does not know that I am observing. I am touched by the thought, care and warmth he shows the girls. The genuine and warm smiles.” (Female, 30-39 years old)

”When my wife shows care for her mother and brother.” (Male, 40-49 years old)

Mixed/other kama muta evoking path:

”When we sat by the breakfast table and I realized how lucky I am to have a man who is good at organizing. He had then helped dressing the two smallest children and made food for all the children. Before he had to go to his job. I was touched when I thought about how lucky I am to have a husband and not being alone. I’m glad I have my husband.” (Female, 30-39 years old)

”Today when we looked at each other during a conversation.” (Female, 40-49 years old)

!66


Negative pre-condition:

”I was having a bad pain day. As much as I wanted to get some things done around the house, I just wasn’t able to. Rather than being upset that I didn’t get something important done for him, he understood and took care of some tasks for me. Then he made sure that I was okay before he sat down and relaxed for the evening.” (Female, 30-39 years old)

”I had a financial crisis, and after having gathered courage for several weeks I presented the case to my partner, fearing that he would become angry. He was glad I brought it up with him and helped me out of the situation.” (Female, 40-49 years old)

”My husband and kids came home with a piece of jewelry for me as a way to say they appreciated me and everything I do for them. This was after a period where I had been a little sad about all the invisible work a mother does every day, which sometimes can feel like an ungrateful job.” (Female, 30-39 years old)

Appendix E - Methodological Details of Pilot Study 2

Participants. The participants were aged from 27 to 63, had 0 to 7 years of education after high-school, and had been in their current relationship for 2 months to 39 years. Seven of the participants were married, while one individual was cohabiting, and the last one was in a romantic relationship without living together or being married to the partner. Two of the participants did not have any children, while the rest had 1 to 4 children. All demographic information about the participants were disarranged and stored separately from the rest of the collected data, which ensured that no participant could be identified from the background data.

Procedure. Because of strong engagement from the participants as well as more topics emerging during the interviews than first expected, the interviews lasted between 42 and 62 minutes, instead of the estimated 30 minutes. All participants were interviewed in Norwegian, which all of them spoke fluently except for one Swedish participant who answered in Swedish. In order not to prime or affect the participants, my intention to differentiate between autonomy and intimacy promoting behaviors in the final scale were not revealed until the debriefing at the end of the interview, increasing the chances for a more exhaustive investigation of love expressions and an openness to potential more or other underlying dimensions to the scale. To obtain comprehensive accounts from the participants, a position as a naïve interviewer (Willig, 2013) was deliberately taken during the interviews, encouraging the participants to clarify or elaborate further upon their answers. For thematic analysis, engaging in the individuals’ own constructed meaning system is indeed proposed as a fruitful method of eliciting relevant material (Joffe, 2012). Also, motivational interviewing was deliberately used as a method to help establishing rapport during the interviews, and to encourage the participants to speak openly. This was considered being an effective tool for optimizing the understanding of what was being communicated. When the participants disclosed emotionally charged stories from their lives,

!67


affirmations, reflective listening, and summary reflections were used actively as a response to sensitively communicate understanding without taking a stand about the individuals or behaviors involved in the stories. Most of the participants expressed in the end of the interview that they felt inspired or grateful for having achieved new insight, as a result of themselves reflecting upon the questions. All traces of communication in social media inboxes, chats, and history of recent phone-calls were immediately and permanently deleted after each interview was done.

Analytical Method and Coding System. The qualitative data was analyzed with thematic analysis as a guiding method, seeking to identify, analyze, and interpret patterns of meaning within it (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The analysis combined deductive and inductive approaches. The deductive elements in the structure of the coding system were informed by theories and empirical findings from the literature on autonomy and intimacy. Furthermore, the definition of love expressions that were constructed and used for this study, as well as the decision to focus on spontaneous, self-initiated love expressions in neutral or benign contexts rather than responses to communicated needs, guided the development of the coding system. The other source to the coding system development were the inductive elements, which emerged from the data itself. The entire data set was scrutinized thoroughly in order to identify clusters, sub-clusters, themes, and sub-themes. Each interview was first parsed vertically, generating nodes to which text excerpts were assigned to. Thereafter, the interviews were parsed horizontally, whereby the nodes were compared across the interviews and categorized into clusters, sub-clusters, themes, and sub-themes. This process was repeated several times, resulting in sundry of them being re-conceptualized, redrawn, or collapsed.

References:

Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. Sage publications. Joffe, H. (2012). Thematic analysis, in D. Harper and A. R. Thompson (eds) Qualitative Research Methods in Mental

Health and Psychotherapy. Chichester: John Wiley. Willig, C. (2013). Introducing qualitative research in psychology. McGraw-Hill Education.

Appendix F - Interview Guide Pilot Study 2

1. Informed Consent see Appendix B.

2. Demographics Gender, age, years of education, number of children, duration of current romantic relationship, and relationship status.

3. Guideline 1. Showing love can be done in so many different ways. In what ways do you think that a person can feel very loved by his/her romantic partner?

2. People can become uncertain about their partner’s love for them if something specific

lacks or is removed from the romantic relationship. What do you think are among the most harmful things to experience that would indicate that a romantic partner doesn’t care that much anymore about the relationship?

!68


3. Try to remember one specific moment in your romantic relationship where you felt very satisfied. Go back to that day in your mind. What happened that day? In what way did your partner express his/her love for you, or in what way did you express your love for your partner?

4. Now try to remember one specific moment in your romantic relationship where you felt very sad or frustrated. Go back to that day in your mind. What happened that day? What kind of affirmations of your partner’s love for you did you feel that you did not get? Or what did you not do that made you feel bad?

5. During a normal day in your life together with your romantic partner, in what ways do you think your partner experience that you love him/her? In your mind, go through the whole typical day. Start thinking about the morning routines, working hours, afternoons, evenings, and nights.

6. How are romantic relationships different from other relationships? Are there any love expressions that are more important in romantic relationships compared to other relationships?

Appendix G - Clusters, Themes, and Sub-themes for Self-initiated Autonomy and Intimacy Promoting Love Expressions and the Corresponding Descriptions and Generated Items

Cluster Themes, Sub-themes, Descriptions & Items How it is expressed Typical characteristics, what it may signal, and how it may be operationalized

(I) = Intimacy promoting, (A) = Autonomy promoting For the items: ”During the last two weeks I can recall that I have…”

Words Theme 1: Openness Sub-theme 1: Narrative Characteristics: The mutual exchange of narratives; giving insight into each other’s

experiences in daily life, like activities, social relations, routines, work, and incidents. Signals: A willingness to let the partner feel involved in one’s daily life; a wish to share

one’s daily life with the partner; interest in the partner’s daily experiences. Items: 1) asked my partner about his/her day (A), 2) told my partner about my day (I), Sub-theme 2: Curiosity Characteristics: Engaging as an interlocutor. Signals: An interest in knowing the partner’s history, reflections, and perspectives; an

interest in understanding the partner’s needs, wants, and feelings. Items: 3) asked my partner how he/she is doing (I), 4) invited my partner to describe his/

her feelings about an emotional topic (I), 5) initiated conversations with my partner about a topic I know he/she is very into (A), 6) asked my partner about his/her opinion on something (A), 7) encouraged my partner to communicate what he/she needs or wants in life (A), 8) invited my partner to tell about earlier or recent experiences in his/her life (A),

Sub-theme 3: Honesty Characteristics: Initiating and engaging in meaningful conversations; being honest;

revealing feelings, hopes, and expectations; talking with the partner about important subjects before or instead of talking to others about them.

Signals: A willingness to let the partner get to know the most intimate parts of oneself; an accepting environment where the partner does not need to handle feelings of weaknesses,

!69


failures, or sorrows alone; respect for the partner through not leaving him/her in the dark; trust that the partner will not exploit the information and will keep it confidential; vulnerability; willingness to get emotionally close.

Items: 9) really tried to be 100% sincere and honest with my partner (I), 10) initiated conversations about subjects that really matters to me or interests me (I), 11) uncovered my deeper thoughts and feelings in conversations with my partner (I), 12) felt misunderstood by my partner but did not say anything to him/her (RE)(A), 13) become disappointed in my expectations, but did not mention that to my partner (RE)(A), 14) initiated to talk with my partner about uncomfortable matters (A),

Sub-theme 4: Humbleness Characteristics: Highlighting understanding and similarities instead of ignorance and

differences; compromising; being able to admit own flaws; asking for forgiveness; avoiding generalizing and judging words; asking for help instead of insisting that the partner should do something; asking for the right time to tell about something instead of overwhelming the partner.

Signals: An acknowledgement of the partner’s feelings as important; the possibility that oneself not necessarily has a better understanding of something compared to what the partner has; a view of the partner as a responsible, competent person; respect for the partner’s needs.

Items: 15) asked my partner about his/her advice (A), 16) insisted my partner should do something (RE)(A),

Theme 2: Self-expansion Sub-theme 1: Goals Characteristics: Initiating and engaging in conversations about the partner’s dreams,

goals, and interests. Signals: A wish for the partner to experience positive feelings from developing or

succeeding in his/her endeavor; a wish for the partner to experience hope, interest in and excitement about the future.

Items: 17) asked my partner to describe his/her specific goals within an area of interest (A), 18) invited my partner to tell about his/her progress towards a goal (A),

Sub-theme 2: Encouragement Characteristics: Motivating the partner’s attempts to approach his/her goals; conveying

univocal support for the partner’s investment of time and energy in goals or interests and refraining from complaining about accompanying strains both to the partner and to significant others; suggesting that the partner spends time doing something he/she enjoys.

Signals: A wish for the partner to feel joy, motivation, strength, and focus in the initiation, continuation, renewal, or intensification of attempts to reach a goal; an approval or blessing of time spent in recreational or fun activities.

Items: 19) verbally encouraged my partner to explore something he/she is interested in (A), 20) encouraged my partner to spend time on pleasurable activities (A), 21) motivated my partner to pursue his/her dreams (A), 22) talked positively about my partner’s investment in his/her interests/career (A), 23) acknowledged my partner’s progress (A), 24) highlighted positive effects from things my partner has done (A),

Sub-theme 3: Challenge Characteristics: Highlighting aspects of life that are essential for the partner’s

psychological or physiological health; challenging the partner to develop in areas of life that are vital to his/her well-being; motivating the partner to engage in positive activities that may feel uncomfortable or scary in the moment; helping the partner to regulate him/herself.

Signals: A wish for the partner to feel strong and healthy; a wish for the partner to experience development; a wish for the partner to feel psychological wellness, not only in the present, but also in the future.

Items: 25) nudged my partner to do what he/she actually needs for maintaining or improving his/her health or well-being (i.e., taking care of his/her sleeping or eating routines, or exercising) (A), 26) reminded my partner of his/her earlier expressed goals (A), 27) verbally challenged my partner to face uncomfortable, but positive situations that may promote his/her well-being (A), 28) challenged my partner to actually start approaching his/her goals (A),

!70


Theme 3: Positivity Sub-theme 1: Humor Characteristics: Portraying situations in a way that makes the partner laugh; knowing

the partner well enough to be able to joke about a vast variety of subjects, but at the same time not violate the partner’s values and keeping them in accordance with his/her personality and sensitivity; laughing and joking about oneself.

Signals: A wish for the partner to have a good time; a wish for the partner to receive new, hopeful perspectives; a wish for the partner to feel less shame related to transgressions or weaknesses; a relaxed and accepting environment.

Items: 29) told my partner about a funny moment (I), 30) laughed about myself when having fun together with my partner (I), 31) used irony or some inside jokes when talking to my partner (I),

Sub-theme 2: Optimism Characteristics: Depicting potential problems in a more optimistic or realistic way

rather than in a pessimistic manner. Signals: A wish for the partner to feel hope for the future; a wish for the partner to feel

strong and in control. Items: 32) had a positive attitude when being with my partner (A), 33) talked about the

future in an optimistic way when talking to my partner (A), 34) said good morning, goodbye or wished my partner a nice day (A),

Sub-theme 3: Contentment Characteristics: Expressing satisfaction; refraining from excessive complaining. Signals: A wish for the partner to not feel weak or burdened. Items: 35) expressed satisfaction about the small things in my everyday life when

talking to my partner (A), 36) expressed contentment about current life situation when talking to my partner (A),

Theme 4: Affirmations Sub-theme 1: Gratefulness Characteristics: Saying ”thank you”; expressing gratefulness for the partner’s choice of

words, acts, or attitudes. Signals: An appreciation of the partner’s positive characteristics or actions; social worth. Items: 37) said ”thank you” to my partner (A), 38) made sure that my partner’s efforts

didn’t go unnoticed (A), 39) expressed gratefulness towards my partner (A),

Sub-theme 2: Admiration Characteristics: Praising the partner for his/her positive characteristics, abilities,

personality, or physical appearance. Signals: A positive view of the partner; social worth; positive emotions about being in

the relationship; a view of the partner as good-looking. Items: 40) told my partner that I am proud of him/her (I), 41) said to my partner that I

am impressed by him/her (A), 42) complimented my partner on his/her appearance (A), 43) complimented my partner on his/her competence (A), 44) complimented my partner on his/her character (A), 45) described to my partner why I admire him/her (A), 46) emphasized to my partner how unique I think he/she is (A), 47) expressed to my partner that I think it is interesting to talk to him/her (A),

Sub-theme 3: Public recognition Characteristics: Talking well about the partner in social settings; refraining from

expressing sarcastic or negative comments about the partner when others are present. Signals: Social worth; a positive view of the partner; loyalty; dedication to the

relationship; relationship satisfaction. Items: 48) talked well about my partner in social settings when he/she was present (A),

49) affirmed my partner on social media platforms (A), 50) talked well about my partner in social settings when he/she was not present (A), 51) posted a photo of us together on a social media platform (I), 52) written a post related to our relationship on a social media platform (I),

!71


Theme 5: Togetherness Sub-theme 1: Sexual desire Characteristics: Explicitly expressing a sexual desire for the partner; flirting or hinting

about an attraction for the partner. Signals: Physical attraction; a view of the partner as sexually appealing; a wish to be

intimate and emotionally close to the partner. Items: 53) sexted (sent erotic text messages to) my partner (I), 54) told my partner that I

am attracted to him/her (I), 55) described to my partner my sexual desire for him/her (I),

Sub-theme 2: Emotional bonds Characteristics: Revealing positive feelings for the partner; describing to the partner

how he/she positively affects one’s experience of pleasurable emotions or a meaningful life. Signals: Deep and positive emotions for the partner; meaningful relationship; devotion. Items: 56) said ”I love you” to my partner (I), 57) used affectionate forms of names to

my partner (i.e., darling, honey, sweetheart)(I), 58) described to my partner how much he/she means to me (I), 59) expressed to my partner that I can't live without him/her (I), 60) described to my partner what wonderful feelings he/she evokes in me (I), 61) expressed to my partner that he/she is so right for me (I),

Sub-theme 3: Union Characteristics: Inviting the partner to join own plans or activities; expressing the

experience of longing for and missing the partner when being away from him/her; expressing enjoyment of spending time with the partner.

Signals: A desire and enjoyment of spending time with the partner; a wish for the partner to feel included; a view of the partner as interesting and fun.

Items: 62) told my partner that I look forward to spending time with him/her (I), 63) told my partner that I love spending time with him/her (I), 64) invited my partner to join my plans or activities (I), 65) expressed how much I have missed my partner when I have been away from him/her (I),

Sub-theme 4: Dedication Characteristics: Depicting the relationship as unique and important; proposing to the

partner; marrying the partner; talking about future together; talking about the partner as ”the only one”.

Signals: Faithfulness; an intention to invest in the relationship; a plan to spend the future together with the partner.

Items: 66) made future plans together with my partner (I), 67) talked about our relationship as unique and special (I), (68) talked about other individuals as being attractive (with or without my partner listening) (I) (RE),

Sensory Attention Theme 6: Delight Eyes Characteristics: Looking at the partner with interest or in a loving way; lighting up

when seeing the partner; putting things aside to look at and welcome the partner when he/she is coming home; flirting with the partner with facial expressions; smiling at the partner.

Signals: Interest; attraction; a view of the partner as special; a wish for the partner to feel special; deep and positive emotions for the partner.

Items: 69) looked at my partner in a way that have signaled that I find him/her attractive (I), 70) looked at my partner in a loving way (I),

Facial Expressions 71) smiled at my partner (A), 72) lit up when seeing my partner after some time apart (I), 73) flirted with my partner using facial flirting expressions (I),

Voice Theme 7: Sincerity Characteristics: Saying something in a sincere way; conveying a message in calm way. Signals: Deep and positive emotions for the partner; intentions of not hurting or scaring

the partner. Items: 74) expressed loving words to my partner with a soft tone of voice (I), 75) said

something nice to my partner in a very sincere way (I),

!72


Experiences Theme 8: We-preference Together Sub-theme 1: Presence Characteristics: Spending time with the partner in ordinary, everyday life; being in

close proximity to the partner while individually engaging in tasks; relaxing together; eating breakfast and dinner together; going to bed together.

Signals: A desire to spend time with the partner; a wish for the partner to feel included; a feeling of relaxation in the presence of the partner.

Items: 76) chosen to start or end my day together with my partner (I), 77) prioritized other things than spending time with my partner (RE)(I),

Sub-theme 2: Mutual explorations Characteristics: Engaging in activities with the partner; investing time in mutual

interests; exploring the world together; experiencing new or fun things together. Signals: A desire to spend time with the partner; a desire to share and assemble mutual

experiences. Items: 78) joined my partner in a shared activity or interest (I), 79) done new things

together with my partner (I), 80) seen friends or acquaintances together with my partner (I), 81) worked together with my partner toward a goal (I),

Sub-theme 3: Memorable moments Characteristics: Spending time with the partner doing something that creates cherished

memories. Signals: An interest in sharing special moments with the partner; a desire to spend time

with the partner. Items: 82) done something special together with my partner (i.e., gone on a trip or

concert, or eaten a nice meal together)(I), 83) organized something that my partner and I have wanted to do for a long time (I), 84) showed my partner some pictures from moments we have shared (I),

Separately Theme 9: Individuality Characteristics: Facilitating self-expanding activities, restitution, socialization, studies,

work or projects that the partner wants to do on his/her own. Signals: Respect for the partner’s needs; a wish for the partner to experience positive

emotions or gather new strength; a wish for the partner to grow and succeed. Items: 85) created opportunities for my partner to spend time with his/her friends (A),

86) made it possible for my partner to enjoy his/her interests or to relax (A), 87) facilitated my partner’s engagement at work or in special projects (A),

Surprises Theme 10: Secret Thoughtfulness Gifts Characteristics: Surprising the partner with gifts, words, or actions. Signals: Attention to what the partner likes or wants; attention to what the partner means

for the relationship; gratefulness; a view of the partner as special; a wish for the partner to feel special; a wish for the partner to feel a sudden increase in happiness.

Items: 88) given my partner a gift (I), 89) spontaneously given my partner a small gift (I), 90) remembered something my partner liked or wanted, and bought it to him/her (A),

Words 91) surprised my partner with a loving text/email for no special reason (I), 92) left a loving note/message to my partner at an unusual place (i.e., in his/her jacket, or under his/her pillow)(I), 93) shared some online content with my partner (A),

Actions 94) done something in secret that I knew my partner would appreciate (I), 95) secretly prepared a wonderful moment for my partner (i.e., a romantic date, or a warm bath with nice scents and dimmed lights)(I), 96) organized a special happening for my partner without him/her knowing it (i.e., birthday party or a travel)(I), 97) spontaneously made time for my partner (I),

!73


Acts Theme 11: Responsibility Practicality Characteristics: Doing practical work related to the home, house, garden, or cars;

earning money and spending money wisely. Signals: A wish for the partner to regard the amount of work as justly distributed; a view

of the partner as equally worth as oneself; respect for the partner; attention to the partner’s everyday needs; a wish for the partner to not feel overwhelmed or exhausted; a wish for the partner feel his/her fundamental needs are taken care of.

Items: 98) taken responsibility for our practical needs (i.e., doing grocery shopping, or keeping things in order in or outside our house)(A), 99) made sure that I did my fair share of work at home (A), 100) contributed in daily duties in a way that my partner experiences as fair (A), 101) cooperated with my partner during the day about practical tasks (A), 102) spent money on something my partner would not have approved (RE)(A),

Theme 12: Extras Characteristics: Doing something for the partner that may not be necessary, but still will

be appreciated, like opening the door for the partner, serving coffee in the morning, baking something good, carrying heavy luggage, or preparing for a cozy moment.

Signals: A wish for the partner to feel special; attention to what the partner appreciates, thinks is strenuous or boring, or has as regular routine to do; a wish for the partner to feel welcome or missed.

Items: 103) offered to run errands for my partner (A), 104) spoiled my partner a little bit by doing more than necessary for him/her (i.e., placed a glass of water by his/her night table)(I), 105) had my partner in mind when earning, spending, or saving money (A),

Shared Care Theme 13: Significant Others Characteristics: Showing care for individuals whom are important for the partner;

making sure it goes well for his/her children and relatives. Signals: A wish for the partner to feel less burdened by significant other’s worries or

difficulties; a wish for the partner to feel positive emotions about his/her significant other’s well-being and progress; what the partner thinks is important is also important to oneself.

Items: 106) taken the initiative to spend time with individuals that my partner cares about (i.e., played with the children, or visited his/her old relatives)(I), 107) called or sent a nice sms to someone important in my partner’s life (i.e., his/her siblings or parents)(I),

Evoking Attraction Theme 14: Making Appealing Characteristics: Putting some effort into making oneself look or smell good for the

partner. Signals: A wish that the partner will experience physical attraction towards oneself; an

interest in sustaining or improving the attraction or sexual activity within the relationship; a wish for the partner to feel sexually satisfied within the relationship.

Items: 108) made sure I smell good for my partner (I), 109) taken extra care of my looks so that my partner could find me appealing (I), 110) worked on my healthy habits to be attractive for my partner (I),

Physical Touch Theme 15: Psychological Comfort Zone Proximity Characteristics: Being physically close to the partner for a longer period of time. Signals: A feeling of comfortableness with the partner’s proximity; a willingness to stay

or become emotionally attached to the partner. Items: 111) sat down close to my partner (I), 112) approached my partner (I), 113) laid

my arm around my partner (I), 114) laid close to my partner when going to bed or getting up in the mornings (I),

Caressing Theme 16: Affection Sub-theme 1: Loving touch Characteristics: Touching the partner in a loving way; kissing the partner.

!74


Signals: Deep and positive emotions for the partner; devotion; attraction. Items: 115) touched my partner in a tender way (I), 116) kissed my partner (I), 117) held

my partner’s hand (I), 118) stroked my partner’s back or hair (I), 119) laid my hand on his/her thigh (I), 120) given my partner a massage (I), 121) kissed my partner’s neck or ear (I),

Sub-theme 2: Yearning touch Characteristics: Touching the partner before or after being apart from him/her. Signals: Deep and positive emotions for the partner; a longing for the partner’s physical

touch. Items: 122) embraced my partner after being apart from each other (I), 123) kissed or

embraced my partner good morning or good night (I), 124) greeted or said good bye to my partner with a tender kiss or long-lasting hug (I), 125) embraced or touched my partner when he/she was focused on something else (I),

Sexual Intimacy Theme 17: Attraction Characteristics: Engaging in and taking the initiative for intimate moments with the

partner; making love to the partner in a way that is in accordance with his/her wants. Signals: Physical attraction to the partner; a wish to be intimate and get emotionally

close to the partner; a wish for the partner to feel attractive; respect for the partner’s wants and boundaries; a wish to maintain or improve the sexual activity within the relationship.

Items: 126) been sexually intimate with my partner (I), 127) taken the initiative for sex with my partner (I), 128) touched my partner on his/her intimate body parts (I),

Theme 18: Faithfulness Characteristics: Being sexually faithful to the partner; refraining from flirting with other

individuals. Signals: Devotion; respect for the partner; a wish for the partner to feel prioritized and

chosen. Items: 129) flirted with someone else than my partner (RE)(I), 130) had an affair with

someone without my partner knowing about it (RE)(I).

Appendix H - Description of and Rational behind the Applied EFA Methods

Exploratory Factor Analysis is a statistical technique that has been broadly applied in social sciences when analyzing data. There exists, however, few absolute guidelines to how this complex and multi-step process should be performed (Costello & Osborne, 2005). Even though maximum likelihood is not the typical approach in exploratory factor analysis, it has been argued to be the best choice for data that are relatively normally distributed (Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999), while oblique rotation allows freedom for factors to be correlated. Furthermore, the research literature has repeatedly found that parallel analysis (PA; Horn, 1965) is more accurate than the Kaiser criterion rule (Kaiser, 1960) and the scree test (Cattell, 1966) in extracting the number of underlying factors in a scale (Silverstein, 1987; Zwick & Velicer, 1986). PA simulates the normal sampling error to generate reference eigenvalues, and by such tests the probability that a factor is extracted by chance. Recently, Horn’s (1965) original work was extended by allowing simulations on the observed data instead of random data, a method that has been found to

!75


demonstrate an accuracy rate of 92.1% compared to 82.5% in a traditional parallel analysis (Ruscio & Roche, 2012). For these reasons, the analyses of each scale in SAILS consisted of an iterative process whereby the items first were subjected to a PA, followed by a factor analysis with maximum likelihood extraction and oblique rotation that specified the factor solution that was suggested within the PA result. Concurrently, also the scree plot, the eigenvalues, and the pattern matrix were investigated, a multiple method long recommended by experts on EFA (e.g., Gorsuch, 1983). Items that did not contribute to strong loadings or the presence of a simple structure (Thurstone, 1947) in the pattern matrix were removed, before a new PA and factor analysis were conducted. This process went on until the results reached a satisfactory solution. For the extended PA method to be applied in the current study, a script developed by O’Connor (2000), collected from https://people.ok.ubc.ca/brioconn/nfactors/rawpar.sps., was used to generate 1000 permutations of the raw data generating eigenvalues from the raw data, mean eigenvalues, and the 95th percentile eigenvalues.

For SAILS-A, 31 items was first subjected to a parallel analysis, which suggested a 2-factor solution. However, even though the pattern matrix provided a clear structure between the two extracted factors, I concluded that too many items (all except from 6) were bundled up within the first factor without differentiating between their potential unique underlying communication signals. Extracting too many factors are errors that may substantially affect results, but specifying too few factors is traditionally considered being more severe (Hayton, Allen, Scarpello, 2004). I therefore chose to run another maximum likelihood extraction with oblique rotation specifying a 3-factor solution instead. This time the pattern matrix allocated the previously ”lumped” items to two meaningful factors. Six items cross-loaded substantially (< .20 difference) and were removed before a new parallel analysis of the remaining 25 items. Again the parallel analysis suggested a 2-factor solution, which I once again did not agree with. In a 3-factor solution, all 25 items reflected a clear structure and moderate to strong loadings in the pattern matrix. It was not obvious based on the inflections in the scree plot whether a 2- or 3-factor solution was the right one, but within the table of total variance explained, both the second and the third factor explained an additional 5% of the variance in the cumulative initial eigenvalues, and thereafter decreased, which I considered defended my decision to terminate the factor analyses process.

The parallel analysis of the retained 44 items in SAILS-I indicated 4 factors. A maximum likelihood extraction with an oblique rotation was therefore performed specifying a 4-factor solution. The pattern matrix revealed a quite clear and simple structure. However, 12 items substantially cross-loaded on two or more factors, which led them to be eliminated. Since each scale in SAILS was intended to have a maximum of 30 items, two additional items (with the lowest loadings) in the scale were removed. The next parallel analysis of the remaining 30 items indicated a 3-factor solution. A second maximum likelihood extraction with an oblique rotation was then performed specifying a three factor solution. Again, the structure of the pattern matrix was clear. However, four new items substantially cross-loaded on two factors. Additionally, one item turned out to be the only item left among the more rarely enacted love expressions (belonging to the 18 items with different response categories than the remaining items in SAILS), and loaded quite weakly onto the factor it belonged to. For these reasons, five items were removed prior to the final parallel analysis

!76

https://people.ok.ubc.ca/brioconn/nfactors/rawpar.sps


of 25 items, which again suggested a 3-factor solution. The results from the maximum likelihood extraction with oblique rotation yielded a clear structure in the pattern matrix. However, only one item reflected what is reported in the research literature as an essential behavioral characteristic of intimate relationships; mutual disclosure of personal information. I therefore decided to include 5 items reflecting this into the next round of parallel analysis. Again, it suggested a 3-factor solution. Now, 3 items in the otherwise clear-structured pattern matrix substantially cross-loaded, which were removed, and an additional 2 items (loading the weakest) on the factor with most items were removed. The final parallel of the remaining 25 items again proposed a 3-factor solution, in which the last maximum likelihood extraction with oblique rotation produced a pattern matrix with a ”clean” structure. Furthermore, the resulting scree plot clearly leveled out from the fourth factor.

References:

Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10

Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Exploratory Factor Analysis, 10(7), 10.

Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272–299. doi:10.1037/1082- 989X.4.3.272

Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor Retention Decisions in Exploratory Factor Analysis: A

Tutorial on Parallel Analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7(2), 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428104263675

Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185. doi:10.1007/BF02289447

Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151. doi:10.1177/001316446002000116

O’Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 32, 396 – 402. doi:10.3758/BF03200807

Ruscio, J., & Roche, B. (2012). Determining the number of factors to retain in an exploratory factor analysis using comparison data of known factorial structure. Psychological Assessment, 24(2), 282–292. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025697

Silverstein, A. B. (1987). Note on the parallel analysis criterion for determining the number of common factors or principal components. Psychological Reports, 61, 351-354.

!77


Appendix I - Results from Exploratory Scale Analysis of SAILS-A

Figure 1. Scree Plot of Eigenvalues from the final 25 items in SAILS-A

!

Table 1. Parallel Analysis of Eigenvalues from the final 25 items in SAILS-A

Factor Eigenvalue from Raw Data Mean Eigenvalue from Simulation

95th Percentile Eigenvalue from Simulation

1 11.298350 1.572690 1.660344

2 2.488508 1.482640 1.547950

3 1.296987 1.412115 1.464145

4 .858356 1.354328 1.403574

5 .760261 1.301584 1.346804

6 .688075 1.252225 1.292974

7 .637429 1.207401 1.245842

Note. How many factors that are suggested to be retained in the Parallel Analysis are indicated by comparing column 1 and 3, where eigenvalues of factors from the actual data should exceed the 95th percentile of eigenvalues from the simulation.

!78


Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, Rotated Factor Loadings from Pattern Matrix, Communalities, Eigenvalues, Variance Explained, Cronbach’s Alpha, and Factor Correlations for SAILS-A

SAILS-A Items ”During the last two weeks I have…” M SD 1 2 3 h2

- initiated conversations with my partner about a topic I know he/she is very into. 3.22 1.45 .210 .106 .455 .451

- encouraged my partner to communicate what he/she needs or wants in life. 2.76 1.65 .267 -.073 .509 .506

- invited my partner to tell about his/her progress towards a goal. 2.54 1.61 .021 -.076 .779 .599

- verbally encouraged my partner to explore something he/she is interested in. 2.80 1.55 -.064 .043 .839 .650

- encouraged my partner to spend time on pleasurable activities. 3.28 1.60 .109 .210 .545 .528

- motivated my partner to pursue his/her dreams. 2.55 1.61 -.009 -.069 .779 .568

- talked positively about my partner’s investment in his/her interests/career. 2.68 1.58 .088 .002 .658 .530

- acknowledged my partner’s progress. 2.94 1.62 .182 .074 .597 .595

- highlighted positive effects from things my partner has done. 3.11 1.55 .550 .095 .190 .547

- talked about the future in an optimistic way when talking to my partner. 3.27 1.67 .469 .124 .161 .421

- expressed satisfaction about the small things in my everyday life when talking to my partner. 3.29 1.62 .476 .223 .112 .447

- made sure that my partner’s efforts didn’t go unnoticed. 3.72 1.61 .493 .258 .064 .444

- expressed gratefulness towards my partner. 3.65 1.67 .659 .224 -.030 .535

- said to my partner that I am impressed by him/her. 2.66 1.49 .615 -.097 .254 .639

- complimented my partner on his/her appearance. 3.13 1.72 .883 -.065 -.131 .599

- complimented my partner on his/her competence. 3.17 1.60 .596 .120 .187 .629

- complimented my partner on his/her character. 2.72 1.63 .704 -.081 .169 .669

- described to my partner why I admire him/her. 2.34 1.68 .856 -.110 .018 .714

- emphasized to my partner how unique I think he/she is. 2.30 1.69 .691 -.061 .095 .561

- expressed to my partner that I think it is interesting to talk to him/her. 2.63 1.76 .564 -.068 .201 .505

- facilitated my partner’s engagement at work or in special projects. 2.06 1.68 -.010 .057 .533 .298

- taken responsibility for our practical needs (i.e., doing grocery shopping, or keeping things in order in or outside our house).

3.97 1.76 -.149 .700 .130 .498

- made sure that I did my fair share of work at home. 4.41 1.78 .006 .829 -.070 .657

- contributed in daily duties in a way that my partner experiences as fair. 4.33 1.70 .007 .809 .035 .677

!79


Table 3. Structure Matrix of SAILS-A

- cooperated with my partner during the day about practical tasks. 3.98 1.68 .289 .604 -.033 .522

Eigenvalue initial 11.30 2.49 1.30

Eigenvalue following rotation 10.85 2.09 .853

Percent of variance initial 45.19 10.00 5.19

Percent of variance following rotation 43.40 8.35 3.41

Cronbach’s alpha .93 .84 .90

Factor correlations:

Factor 1 ”Partner-oriented Affirmations” 3.00 1.24 —

Factor 2 ”Responsibility” 4.17 1.42 .37 —

Factor 3 ”Goal-orientation” 2.76 1.19 .80 .36 —

Note. N = 296. Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization. Rotation converged in 11 iterations. The strongest factor loadings for the items appear in bold.

SAILS-A Items ”During the last two weeks I have…” M SD 1 2 3 h2

SAILS-A Items ”During the last two weeks I have…” 1 2 3

- initiated conversations with my partner about a topic I know he/she is very into. .585 .311 .648

- encouraged my partner to communicate what he/she needs or wants in life. .630 .165 .687

- invited my partner to tell about his/her progress towards a goal. .588 .178 .771

- verbally encouraged my partner to explore something he/she is interested in. .582 .291 .804

- encouraged my partner to spend time on pleasurable activities. .580 .414 .694

- motivated my partner to pursue his/her dreams. .560 .176 .751

- talked positively about my partner’s investment in his/her interests/career. .586 .237 .726

- acknowledged my partner’s progress. .654 316 .758

- highlighted positive effects from things my partner has done. .721 .313 .636

- talked about the future in an optimistic way when talking to my partner. .626 .310 .554

- expressed satisfaction about the small things in my everyday life when talking to my partner. .625 .395 .543

- made sure that my partner’s efforts didn’t go unnoticed. .615 .419 .518

!80


- expressed gratefulness towards my partner. .700 .403 .538

- said to my partner that I am impressed by him/her. .779 .160 .688

- complimented my partner on his/her appearance. .765 .146 .515

- complimented my partner on his/her competence. .772 .350 .676

- complimented my partner on his/her character. .808 .175 .675

- described to my partner why I admire him/her. .838 .141 .630

- emphasized to my partner how unique I think he/she is. .745 .167 .597

- expressed to my partner that I think it is interesting to talk to him/her. .697 .158 .606

- facilitated my partner’s engagement at work or in special projects. .408 .223 .543

- taken responsibility for our practical needs (i.e., doing grocery shopping, or keeping things in order in or outside our house).

.150 .699 .240

- made sure that I did my fair share of work at home. .191 .808 .198

- contributed in daily duties in a way that my partner experiences as fair. .265 .822 .298

- cooperated with my partner during the day about practical tasks. .437 .676 .377

SAILS-A Items ”During the last two weeks I have…” 1 2 3

!81


Appendix J - Results from Exploratory Scale Analysis of SAILS-I

Figure 2. Scree Plot of Eigenvalues in SAILS-I

!

Table 4. Parallel Analysis of Eigenvalues from the final 25 items in SAILS-I

Factor Eigenvalue from Raw Data Mean Eigenvalue from Simulation

95th Percentile Eigenvalue from Simulation

1 11.380350 1.572690 1.660344

2 2.630077 1.482640 1.547950

3 1.622814 1.412115 1.464145

4 .905101 1.354328 1.403574

5 .819880 1.301584 1.346804

6 .718599 1.252225 1.292974

7 .610568 1.207401 1.245842

Note. How many factors that are suggested to be retained in the Parallel Analysis are indicated by comparing column 1 and 3, where eigenvalues of factors from the actual data should exceed the 95th percentile of eigenvalues from the simulation.

!82


Table 5. Means, Standard Deviations, Rotated Factor Loadings from Pattern Matrix, Communalities, Eigenvalues, Variance Explained, Cronbach’s Alpha, and Factor Correlations for SAILS-I

SAILS-I Items ”During the last two weeks I have…” M SD 1 2 3 h2

- told my partner about my day. 3.80 1.73 -.020 .168 .472 .330

- invited my partner to describe his/her feelings about an emotional topic. 2.41 1.56 -.134 .257 .644 .566

- initiated conversations about subjects that really matters to me or interests me. 3.42 1.54 .048 .057 .621 .467

- uncovered my deeper thoughts and feelings in conversations with my partner. 2.30 1.58 -.024 .257 .525 .479

- told my partner about a funny moment. 3.72 1.58 .027 -.086 .750 .516

- described to my partner how much he/she means to me. 2.67 1.78 .230 .764 -.048 .744

- expressed to my partner that he/she is so right for me. 2.50 1.91 .178 .757 -.002 .726

- told my partner that I love spending time with him/her. 2.90 1.88 .321 .665 -.015 .723

- invited my partner to join my plans or activities. 3.04 1.61 .092 .019 .608 .454

- expressed how much I have missed my partner when I have been away from him/her. 2.37 1.82 -.093 .655 .166 .519

- made future plans together with my partner. 3.04 1.59 .034 .008 .688 .506

- talked about our relationship as unique and special. 2.12 1.72 .033 .674 .156 .628

- looked at my partner in a loving way. 3.92 1.93 .599 .197 .143 .650

- lit up when seeing my partner after some time apart. 2.21 1.63 -.003 .526 .131 .371

- joined my partner in a shared activity or interest. 3.39 1.63 .144 -.072 .581 .396

- worked together with my partner toward a goal. 3.09 1.66 .041 -.034 .708 .506

- sat down close to my partner. 4.21 1.93 .762 -.225 .190 .617

- laid my arm around my partner. 3.58 1.94 .880 .001 -.020 .757

- touched my partner in a tender way. 3.75 1.93 .856 .028 .024 .779

- kissed my partner. 4.37 1.98 .775 .005 .005 .609

- held my partner’s hand. 3.32 1.95 .709 .040 .069 .591

- stroked my partner’s back or hair. 3.23 1.94 .749 .078 .080 .699

- laid my hand on his/her thigh. 3.13 1.98 .791 .041 .023 .678

- embraced or touched my partner when he/she was focused on something else. 2.93 1.85 .664 .124 .024 .552

- touched my partner on his/her intimate body parts. 2.71 1.81 .719 .106 -.107 .513

Eigenvalue initial 11.38 2.63 1.62

Eigenvalue following rotation 10.91 2.21 1.26

!83


Table 6. Structure Matrix of SAILS-I

Percent of variance initial 45.52 10.52 6.49

Percent of variance following rotation 43.63 8.83 5.04

Cronbach’s alpha .95 .90 .88

Factor correlations:

Factor 1 ”Attraction” 3.52 1.57 —

Factor 2 ”Emotional Bonds” 2.46 1.46 .59 —

Factor 3 ”Sharing of Experiences” 3.13 1.15 .58 .65 —

Note. N = 296. Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization. Rotation converged in 11 iterations. The strongest factor loadings for the items appear in bold.

SAILS-I Items ”During the last two weeks I have…” M SD 1 2 3 h2

SAILS-I Items ”During the last two weeks I have…” 1 2 3

- told my partner about my day. .311 .432 .558

- invited my partner to describe his/her feelings about an emotional topic. .331 .569 .721

- initiated conversations about subjects that really matters to me or interests me. .409 .439 .680

- uncovered my deeper thoughts and feelings in conversations with my partner. .376 .550 .660

- told my partner about a funny moment. .393 .361 .715

- described to my partner how much he/she means to me. .552 .841 .519

- expressed to my partner that he/she is so right for me. .522 .837 .534

- told my partner that I love spending time with him/her. .616 .803 .544

- invited my partner to join my plans or activities. .429 .414 .669

- expressed how much I have missed my partner when I have been away from him/her. .295 .709 .495

- made future plans together with my partner. .409 .422 .711

- talked about our relationship as unique and special. .425 .780 .565

- looked at my partner in a loving way. .766 .553 .580

- lit up when seeing my partner after some time apart. .307 .600 .434

- joined my partner in a shared activity or interest. .425 331 .617

- worked together with my partner toward a goal. .408 .396 .710

- sat down close to my partner. .762 .232 .471

!84


Appendix K - Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations of all Main Variables in the Main Study

Table 7. Mean, Standard Deviations, Confidence Intervals, and Intercorrelations of all Main Variables in the Main Study

- laid my arm around my partner. .870 .390 .456

- touched my partner in a tender way. .882 .432 .502

- kissed my partner. .780 .361 .426

- held my partner’s hand. .765 .403 .475

- stroked my partner’s back or hair. .828 .466 .530

- laid my hand on his/her thigh. .822 .415 .473

- embraced or touched my partner when he/she was focused on something else. .733 .441 .454

- touched my partner on his/her intimate body parts. .710 .372 .343

SAILS-I Items ”During the last two weeks I have…” 1 2 3

Measure M SD 95% CI 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. SAILS-A 3.10 1.08 [2.98, 3.22] —

2. SAILS-I 3.13 1.20 [2.99, 3.26] .84** —

3. PRAI-A 5.41 1.00 [5.30, 5.53] .37** .47** —

4. PRAI-I 5.61 1.09 [5.49, 5.74] .42** .59** .80** —

5. KAMF 2.14 1.25 [2.00, 2.29] .47** .54** .40** .45** —

6. ECR-RS Avoidance 2.47 1.20 [2.33, 2.61] -.38** -.52** -.67** -.70** -.37** —

7. ECR-RS Anxiety 2.48 1.42 [2.32, 2.65] -.22** -.27** -.51** -.47** -.07 .50** —

8. RS5 4.86 1.06 [4.74, 4.98] .35** .54** .71** .75** .36** -.75** -.50** —

Note. N = 296. ** = Correlations are significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). SAILS-A = Self-initiated Autonomy and Intimacy promoting Love expression Scale, Autonomy; SAILS-I = Self-initiated Autonomy and Intimacy promoting Love expression Scale, Intimacy; PRAI-A = Perceived Received Autonomy and Intimacy, Autonomy; PRAI-I = Perceived Received Autonomy and Intimacy, Intimacy; KAMF = Kama Muta Frequency Scale; ECR-RS = Experiences in Close Relationships, Relationship Structures Questionnaire; RS5 = Relationship Satisfaction Questionnaire.

!85


Appendix L - Hierarchical Multiple Regression Summary predicting Attachment Avoidance

Table 8. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Summary predicting Attachment Avoidance

Model and predictor variable B SE β t p CI R2 𝛥R2

Model 1: .25

ECR-RS Anxiety .43 .04 .50 10.00 .000 [.34, .51]

Model 2: .42 .17

ECR-RS Anxiety .33 .04 .39 8.39 .000 [.25, .40]

SAILS-A .19 .09 .17 2.12 .035 [.01, .37]

SAILS-I -.56 .08 -.56 -6.84 .000 [-.72, -.40]

Model 3: .57 .15

ECR-RS Anxiety .16 .04 .19 4.10 .000 [.23, .50]

SAILS-A .10 .08 .09 1.20 .230 [-.06, .25]

SAILS-I -.25 .08 -.25 -3.12 .002 [-.41, -.09]

PRAI-A -.31 .08 -.26 -3.89 .000 [-.47, -.15]

PRAI-I -.32 .08 -.29 -4.10 .000 [-.48, -.17]

Model 4: .58 .01

ECR-RS Anxiety .16 .04 .18 4.09 .000 [.08, .23]

SAILS-A .08 .08 .08 4.09 .296 [-.07, .24]

SAILS-I -.25 .08 -.25 1.05 .002 [-.41, -.09]

PRAI-A -.32 .08 -.27 -4.06 .000 [-.48, -.17]

PRAI-I -.30 .08 -.27 -3.77 .000 [-.46, -.14]

SAILS-A x SAILS-I .06 .03 .08 2.09 .038 [.00, .12]

Note. Dependent variable: Attachment avoidance (ECR-RS Avoidance). N = 296. ECR-RS = Experiences in Close Relationships, Relationship Structures Questionnaire; SAILS-A = Self-initiated Autonomy and Intimacy promoting Love expression Scale, Autonomy; SAILS-I = Self-initiated Autonomy and Intimacy promoting Love expression Scale, Intimacy; PRAI-A = Perceived Received Autonomy and Intimacy, Autonomy; PRAI-I = Perceived Received Autonomy and Intimacy, Intimacy.

!86


Appendix M - Hierarchical Multiple Regression Summary predicting Attachment Anxiety

Table 9. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Summary predicting Attachment Anxiety

Model and predictor variable B SE β t p CI R2 𝛥R2

Model 1: .25

ECR-RS Avoidance .60 .06 .50 10.00 .000 [.48, .71]

Model 2: .26 .00

ECR-RS Avoidance .59 .07 .50 8.39 .000 [.45, .73]

SAILS-A -.07 .12 -.06 -.61 .545 [-.31, .17]

SAILS-I .04 .12 .04 .36 .721 [-.19, .28]

Model 3: .31 .06

ECR-RS Avoidance .35 .09 .30 4.10 .000 [.18, .52]

SAILS-A -.08 .12 -.06 -.70 .487 [-.32, .15]

SAILS-I .14 .12 .12 1.12 .263 [-.10, .38]

PRAI-A -.37 .12 -.26 -3.04 .003 [-.60, -.13]

PRAI-I -.13 .12 -.10 -1.09 .275 [-.37, .11]

Note. Dependent variable: Attachment anxiety (ECR-RS Anxiety). N = 296. ECR-RS = Experiences in Close Relationships, Relationship Structures Questionnaire; SAILS-A = Self-initiated Autonomy and Intimacy promoting Love expression Scale, Autonomy; SAILS-I = Self-initiated Autonomy and Intimacy promoting Love expression Scale, Intimacy; PRAI-A = Perceived Received Autonomy and Intimacy, Autonomy; PRAI-I = Perceived Received Autonomy and Intimacy, Intimacy.

!87

Self-Initiated Autonomy- and Intimacy-promoting Love ...

Documents