<%BANNER%>

Desired Loving Behaviors across the Life Span

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022314/00001

Material Information

Title: Desired Loving Behaviors across the Life Span
Physical Description: 1 online resource (87 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Tiegs, Tom
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: adults, behavior, love, missing, relationships, sex, survey
Psychology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Counseling Psychology thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Previous research on college-aged participants yielded a consistent four-factor structure describing participants? desires in their romantic relationships. The current project set out to examine desired loving behaviors in romantic relationships in a non-collegiate sample. In order to understand what non-collegians want in order to feel loved, participants completed a free response questionnaire regarding what actions elicit feelings of love. A second sample of participants then rated those items in context of their own relationships. The responses were then factor analyzed to produce a coherent factor structure. A 46-item scale containing five factors emerged showing what people desire to feel loved. The factors are: Relationship Support, Scripting, Personal Support, Respect, and Sex. The items and factors were then examined to test for differences in loving desires based on participant gender, age, relationship length, parenthood status, income, and work status. Significant effects were found based on participant gender, age, relationship length, parenthood status, and work status.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Tom Tiegs.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Heesacker, Martin.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022314:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022314/00001

Material Information

Title: Desired Loving Behaviors across the Life Span
Physical Description: 1 online resource (87 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Tiegs, Tom
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: adults, behavior, love, missing, relationships, sex, survey
Psychology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Counseling Psychology thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Previous research on college-aged participants yielded a consistent four-factor structure describing participants? desires in their romantic relationships. The current project set out to examine desired loving behaviors in romantic relationships in a non-collegiate sample. In order to understand what non-collegians want in order to feel loved, participants completed a free response questionnaire regarding what actions elicit feelings of love. A second sample of participants then rated those items in context of their own relationships. The responses were then factor analyzed to produce a coherent factor structure. A 46-item scale containing five factors emerged showing what people desire to feel loved. The factors are: Relationship Support, Scripting, Personal Support, Respect, and Sex. The items and factors were then examined to test for differences in loving desires based on participant gender, age, relationship length, parenthood status, income, and work status. Significant effects were found based on participant gender, age, relationship length, parenthood status, and work status.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Tom Tiegs.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Heesacker, Martin.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022314:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101109_AAAADJ INGEST_TIME 2010-11-10T02:55:31Z PACKAGE UFE0022314_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 5399 DFID F20101109_AACAME ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH tiegs_t_Page_09thm.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
8ccba52b4b89993b01a54ea5e656b34f
SHA-1
53c9f52c4c0a7ce17cff55cfc1ddef64fa292786
25072 F20101109_AACAHH tiegs_t_Page_36.QC.jpg
cd11169adc1f6eab4f420d2e79993aef
074e0e7779a98f414947aa4a1871cad7ae85156a
69083 F20101109_AACACK tiegs_t_Page_43.jpg
b4610b37cd8824a098ae04f3bfbf946f
a06e0810341c9b9cc917cda74206c83ef6554a16
69296 F20101109_AABZWO tiegs_t_Page_10.jpg
77898b5c381c44eaf5c9a8e443e498ea
fa85a46a89406f7b78b668c16fd13e7d54b99902
6756 F20101109_AABZRR tiegs_t_Page_36thm.jpg
3f9deb45f81d5f8af9e81449a96c5b89
26acef0bf149655681f22875de9eb91783a02c1f
23735 F20101109_AACAMF tiegs_t_Page_15.QC.jpg
86f80a74a8b015c7556d5f65572e4c0f
61702ef8b3a13c2a0645a2ac900d4afbf80b595f
24850 F20101109_AACAHI tiegs_t_Page_78.QC.jpg
f0af12693f2ca7791a92581ba269824f
c6366529a3c934cb8b79aca28eeff6e692819bb9
19385 F20101109_AACACL tiegs_t_Page_75.QC.jpg
9a1100716c70f8ee4470cce19ae10c30
7b7cb9ec144dadf4ff8e7d55053c48a9351c5b86
26332 F20101109_AABZWP tiegs_t_Page_54.QC.jpg
c9b877a1188ac3d63ef48cc14d63157c
c26b158dbc3dc79edf327ab5e3ab80821dd92c98
116598 F20101109_AABZRS tiegs_t_Page_42.jp2
1a1427038743186a8bf9bac3a0cfcecc
18ff26b7b63c2ca8cd4bd416746a7866f5b8dae5
23192 F20101109_AACAMG tiegs_t_Page_16.QC.jpg
f2b3de7ea6989f6d24d304bed596e64c
3c85d0af59be92754d64ce7e29fd3da682740871
24010 F20101109_AACAHJ tiegs_t_Page_14.QC.jpg
0653724489246733ef7ac80ed26ee1cd
327e59e165699d8ad4429da46d8ef51c0c6d37f5
78952 F20101109_AACACM tiegs_t_Page_29.jpg
c08fa19fe042a62d9f68963cd061a6af
f165d078675a1b2aae522874e301e014a7f2f8a3
51962 F20101109_AABZWQ tiegs_t_Page_45.pro
7bb430e8c619efd3e5e45cb6c00e72c6
8e8711cae2b406280cce74f4125bf2412575c650
4642 F20101109_AABZRT tiegs_t_Page_77.pro
73df9ac8dde8bf2caf3f6533beca7b64
25209af8749134decd8bca0c28acc2b0866716ef
6337 F20101109_AACAMH tiegs_t_Page_17thm.jpg
b5d99c9c9e43e842ef7b9af677ef2363
5beec4c1f48eecefb2698a57fcf186416bb213ee
14274 F20101109_AACAHK tiegs_t_Page_77.jpg
b34bd89168034f5926e2de9dc6469560
fd486dc13ea55713acfb44245cd0f000c4161d91
122239 F20101109_AACACN tiegs_t_Page_81.jp2
cf2aff742ce6493d690800fb40c89358
2176225928a48e936d81631cd630b0c2bef08f27
2157 F20101109_AABZWR tiegs_t_Page_12.txt
1934fd258fb10dd8f982328406677a16
139f82585275fe23902c9a607a02b101fed9aa64
1216 F20101109_AABZRU tiegs_t_Page_76.txt
1432a0bebd0e6fda6b519558435f1b5f
d2ed81cad631b580ea9ae03ac5c538fa76c1de17
6929 F20101109_AACAMI tiegs_t_Page_20thm.jpg
706af2a27a5f43fb258e9caddb3f41f6
5bf21caefe6b30b2d5e7337e85931650710bb4ef
15588 F20101109_AACAHL tiegs_t_Page_76.QC.jpg
c3e3d5508fed876fb521ec49302ad937
c0e4a11d0d657823ff7b2fa16fe5eb946048f968
55733 F20101109_AACACO tiegs_t_Page_35.pro
fa07e57b3501a8c3b2b10b59f2231210
33e27cc1a23e3611067ba17f7725ea4879386166
69829 F20101109_AABZWS tiegs_t_Page_17.jpg
c457a9ac890713e9c458e998828c82f8
dd3e0b58055ba778bc2cabf7426f6e70cf32c858
21673 F20101109_AABZRV tiegs_t_Page_01.jp2
42dc00b5580cf7b63bbc58601694c3c6
25e4e93d7353f82fbbc41b1a72572b8311f770bb
6469 F20101109_AACAMJ tiegs_t_Page_21thm.jpg
d7e2c00ffcda90999b529b63d2440021
7be7ab054a417d2b5e9cd9695ede5f6b53e4c4f3
2190 F20101109_AACAHM tiegs_t_Page_32.txt
61113cfe0cc86aaef81206ae6515c560
80c090fbc8dfd07c251e5c81b148df96e7d7eef6
80037 F20101109_AACACP tiegs_t_Page_28.jpg
4b974e5c34d0bbf190da7c93012e8a27
1a4bce26c26b69d1f36cfe03bb64250884366b60
2205 F20101109_AABZWT tiegs_t_Page_22.txt
c8ca084fe6e46e6fe9f9d1434ee31005
971653d668d1376eb467c2ed31f5115332240a20
25271604 F20101109_AABZRW tiegs_t_Page_08.tif
d2c6a90e1fbdeb6ce7c717bcf5a3a56f
03b56aa081c14fb2f354f3edefc8b2117ff7577e
26329 F20101109_AACAMK tiegs_t_Page_22.QC.jpg
c69f13c98a982348a914c3400a918634
f95f7be767b8449c1d97c2764bb88d3c5fd31282
6841 F20101109_AACAHN tiegs_t_Page_66thm.jpg
a66eaef6b4c84603ea919408471f52e2
50cf091d5469f3abe2603f7cc9a00e7e031436ed
25822 F20101109_AACACQ tiegs_t_Page_32.QC.jpg
8864d6f8e089232e56b8da019da608ff
69772aa6f66322b008bef15cfd2aa7f870bd1696
2243 F20101109_AABZWU tiegs_t_Page_39.txt
76d3a534a0a7e5af67f0bbf4849839ee
3b31353abee16f8cdec5a5c415ea4da730d9ef75
409 F20101109_AABZRX tiegs_t_Page_01.txt
7bf47aa851a36a95e990341adb0b2114
17662ac0c217645d82a48b567f0897ecf6bda198
26480 F20101109_AACAML tiegs_t_Page_25.QC.jpg
4a1aed73e0a837ca55d6f61f091054b6
cf5cb9795e367e7fb3c5f390e415109975ddf2a3
1053954 F20101109_AACAHO tiegs_t_Page_27.tif
e54dffa1e0a8b2e3753a8493ca1fc70d
5eb622c255fe901b9b5372796e73230ef2a1d92a
F20101109_AABZWV tiegs_t_Page_35.tif
10afd8d873cf14b1473f388420e2bd6d
cad13b361d64fdd9b4b1c29e7aef3d844f45202f
77027 F20101109_AABZRY tiegs_t_Page_47.jpg
cb2aaf9d014ff6569b18b65159adcbc2
c0879ca633b05a8dcbf1bb96b2cab9e2d77045f9
6954 F20101109_AACAMM tiegs_t_Page_26thm.jpg
1013e42da14b441fc9b2d2960cc36aa1
1d678e114aca1b2c84ed3f8f569e15ae34692261
114112 F20101109_AACAHP tiegs_t_Page_66.jp2
51568c8ffdbdd41fd33ad08636f3a12d
5648af6d245fa463e0d242b9baaa2209dc8d6e97
53842 F20101109_AACACR tiegs_t_Page_47.pro
9b0d405abf7f85be9a7c1969eba97eba
c4a1a13b33f261b1a7aed490a2e4270e517a1897
122152 F20101109_AABZWW tiegs_t_Page_25.jp2
5d123c12f25a27c1d3ceca0d23c5b821
5bd33172c135fcf3db0f6c8080cb4e8f14c07254
722 F20101109_AABZRZ tiegs_t_Page_18.txt
b7d55d5c628e7ca367195eee301d2883
2bec8595d17f42eff32cefb2f5d2ca011c1addc3
6969 F20101109_AACAMN tiegs_t_Page_27thm.jpg
733956cbedbb25212727feb1867bdd38
f1a324a66550cf773e3979b6c2c834552d4799d4
1958 F20101109_AACAHQ tiegs_t_Page_17.txt
7fb0bbd4286cff0ab9991ec2f05f0fae
0e3df6115d59230dc8c3e98a07b65eb455e3a2e7
107516 F20101109_AACACS tiegs_t_Page_78.jp2
c1554a4238ade972c8f20e2c6fa08c14
aaed0a28b27f33aa950911d3d86d5ca2b4581634
F20101109_AABZWX tiegs_t_Page_53.tif
2baa88b58b82316c0fe799cd2c9771e2
ca92455b1f6f4ec309026d1e2501e9d1dbe3507b
7077 F20101109_AACAMO tiegs_t_Page_30thm.jpg
c28ab76b10ac6d832104c23f677abdca
715ba3854f1b003e5fec43ff120fba5db9cbc9d5
4960 F20101109_AACAHR tiegs_t_Page_05thm.jpg
0cd9378e0ea089551c9e3f0d0bc190f2
4d86a85108f90fff4adf5cb14ab8e807f4a7e4ba
6828 F20101109_AACACT tiegs_t_Page_72thm.jpg
292ceb634edf9152847890e457c955ae
f78a177b39f8f29d8f897fa8ba597cefaf3942ad
111447 F20101109_AABZUA tiegs_t_Page_15.jp2
74d3b0c36697909407df8573dda0e98d
ea8f3a3cde6e62a6a269e72c7a29d73b7888d6c1
52330 F20101109_AABZWY tiegs_t_Page_57.pro
007f134cada9a9e94372b8fa5110e945
e0de902e854464fcf79b614276e4cc5f6f45222f
24171 F20101109_AACAMP tiegs_t_Page_31.QC.jpg
52ddc3bba281a5c064d933afe82fbb93
01b7d17d8036e0e6a0266042d6db6140cde8bd3b
115624 F20101109_AACAHS tiegs_t_Page_71.jp2
156d543b8bdabbe695e8d0efd8e6ecdc
8a4c4e0ada89c555687a08ef33ac13558832dad7
24674 F20101109_AACACU tiegs_t_Page_85.QC.jpg
3f87bca50457b856418dc0b60ec80d40
812cc247bc82af4d3f80803869c7c8af8a2d30ce
76195 F20101109_AABZUB tiegs_t_Page_71.jpg
c5346071f29fa2b32c2f13b6f7ae9c68
4ccf533bac486d68156c120aaa1252670621f452
131662 F20101109_AABZWZ tiegs_t_Page_85.jp2
3b46bac3d7d455385e9c577d34abf86d
a5b65d589d71cace1f862259c7945a5c063ff9d9
6639 F20101109_AACAMQ tiegs_t_Page_31thm.jpg
8da0e4948b29fa930086b580d976474d
c90635edb885cf39e36f042ff939eebb45f884ba
25764 F20101109_AACAHT tiegs_t_Page_11.QC.jpg
36e786fb707958865757b11117f86849
d42f9b36ac9ba31e9af0837737e78b440547c81a
F20101109_AACACV tiegs_t_Page_31.tif
a060405b2c24e57ecb40099488eb06e4
8447864bae36c9efa57e24a9346c288c1d5dda4a
54116 F20101109_AABZUC tiegs_t_Page_40.pro
905a168dd08fee8785c8ac5b93d5979c
d812206e64b83f171edbde14016869eac4b7ce05
24365 F20101109_AACAMR tiegs_t_Page_34.QC.jpg
8d5f7d0592cea79199249b0ce096edbd
c69ccfe4d77e201114d27105d760c59ff8181c63
130443 F20101109_AACAHU UFE0022314_00001.xml FULL
5c44d735c6436bca9f24ae20da0a9885
2b2bc6226a60f6856aa1b71b7c5232fb81e55737
F20101109_AACACW tiegs_t_Page_37.tif
e78632f68c14fa631d217821d7032b95
9f7573833450c35e179737e5d54711b53aba71b2
79867 F20101109_AABZUD tiegs_t_Page_33.jpg
a36d925a32263cb839e7dfc1fbdba991
d2856407efbfbc4f4cf76893eda1fb7453be5e8a
26396 F20101109_AABZZA tiegs_t_Page_28.QC.jpg
ca39aed920ebbcd3b778095add8450e6
a3c582347fb6a1d096c3acfbc95e97ae171ca1cc
7245 F20101109_AACAMS tiegs_t_Page_37thm.jpg
0d00c96bb1237a462c19362477adce43
a9f7691321087d7336936b0105eda37e8e1e0e21
113006 F20101109_AACACX tiegs_t_Page_70.jp2
15b0239971ba0a5596d39ff295f2a38d
6696d28838575bf1cf60ae419a002d15fb66b111
18257 F20101109_AABZUE tiegs_t_Page_51.jpg
8d8001d06aa50aae5ec7f990e4c42edb
8ed0768ca0d545ea8bb24a9c491d5c63d954defb
38062 F20101109_AABZZB tiegs_t_Page_57.jpg
2b381e8fe55cba2d4fa36e9926b3bc3f
6d86d832bed1f88b7b2f8b8e102af0c75ce3a137
7140 F20101109_AACAMT tiegs_t_Page_39thm.jpg
af459d3ffbeab67d43af79fce4e0c353
fa29419bcf3ac736003cdbff2cd76e2753616b1c
F20101109_AACACY tiegs_t_Page_39.tif
839c51f117f878c78726cf224856f6af
bac75acdb28061fad9f76118971b77f9d8aeb8a1
2281 F20101109_AABZUF tiegs_t_Page_51thm.jpg
297db8c6e5cbed52e7fb39bf5fed83b8
a29ecadce847bb4462971226a8958edaee27b0d4
120727 F20101109_AABZZC tiegs_t_Page_23.jp2
2d87dcfeae2c95583ba55c6e25aa86c9
5adbd942ac03a2f384ec06a67ca4d423f718e5a3
134623 F20101109_AACAAA tiegs_t_Page_82.jp2
053a3e0cfd49e92175d4051ffbc5db9d
a91ce47535e7f1410d4e4a07231675ad9a644b16
6345 F20101109_AACAMU tiegs_t_Page_43thm.jpg
7a164cf92bd55f8db5176d14468314df
b1a80f70e6d554532773ccb4297739b06aded5a8
52596 F20101109_AACACZ tiegs_t_Page_41.pro
15a37d51875ac22b9600494112139144
8db57d1598e670f0d1f04ebeb808c31a2a111b05
113382 F20101109_AABZUG tiegs_t_Page_34.jp2
1c63ce82ed024952c57712a501cb4063
d478e7f005355b4432ecdff50e1821765b7f8770
2151 F20101109_AABZZD tiegs_t_Page_73.txt
aded653b656b62f2b4ad837324bc2781
6085f471086713f779fadf3cb384dd84e6ee53af
55605 F20101109_AACAAB tiegs_t_Page_11.pro
5fe4582199b80ddfd46927ed17adbb3c
773b9d974c98b2aa57841dff141949089c5dcea1
6681 F20101109_AACAMV tiegs_t_Page_46thm.jpg
0701829d6e51793168d245a5a772b05d
f549076564d1d367600579bde1f9f7b071c90527
21932 F20101109_AACAHX tiegs_t_Page_01.jpg
23d177b02cd086fa0b7adbc7930edacc
4c53a283c7bb08ee718e47ada6e12e78f493a3f1
57226 F20101109_AABZUH tiegs_t_Page_39.pro
287917f31e822e646f4df0e539980a93
d9785eb1605629baa18ff730de1be23e3db57f94
7065 F20101109_AABZZE tiegs_t_Page_69thm.jpg
5844e7ec6b83af2b9e402f3a673f06b4
b8a3efff92c28575682e897cf067cc1979668e12
6919 F20101109_AACAAC tiegs_t_Page_01.pro
adf4f0f79afac70de8e637652f98a45a
b501cc56992b91c872f21ca734bee078c73b66d1
6840 F20101109_AACAMW tiegs_t_Page_47thm.jpg
79a291a7c29351f7d829afd41d11547f
dc307d349a0f830c6b4158b5ef0b3066ac5af81a
9696 F20101109_AACAHY tiegs_t_Page_02.jpg
d38a448301bb5ff3c91518b72d303b9b
15b6f7f58efcdb1e6dcf5d310f0378a203ad4419
2230 F20101109_AABZUI tiegs_t_Page_63.txt
aedbf34b68a459c3ca10a2dfed50a78d
49c2a487d52e054a0305045bb71f46c08eb9ae2f
77531 F20101109_AACAFA tiegs_t_Page_27.jpg
5ad52afcfcc8dfacc2983cf96cb9a097
e87908566aa811149521d57a8ddbe1efacf79b64
40186 F20101109_AABZZF tiegs_t_Page_18.jp2
ad94a52dece7217f94fda4e1f7b3f40e
4bc529575d53bd1dad0a4a47f7693ac02d192dae
6126 F20101109_AACAAD tiegs_t_Page_19thm.jpg
033473bcf5d7cbbdca98dccc5156ddbb
bdabef1cf2362725e620ca40094a6c346e5d0fec
7131 F20101109_AACAMX tiegs_t_Page_48thm.jpg
3bdb88bfb3dabe604d48fb026426f5c8
551511b9e8064a61d96b2bb177ec25ced377c7ed
59580 F20101109_AACAHZ tiegs_t_Page_09.jpg
f69322ae069ed7d0ac1e7d601f4778e2
28e91d19a769f10ce8bf06210b8e507e47cbe95c
119864 F20101109_AACAFB tiegs_t_Page_22.jp2
78fd4cbd6c23bb07fed0358d82687604
8f39d396efd740fb76b2dd5e5cb6530658a59acf
82305 F20101109_AABZZG tiegs_t_Page_57.jp2
f998308b4b55dcbf613a91217d0f5304
95b1329b667164a747eddee814f9193f09ca6d41
85219 F20101109_AACAAE tiegs_t_Page_75.jp2
702ec6407ef1b936d3c9f215f01d8f61
180f3f99d09846328cc8fe29db9ec43276435e46
6119 F20101109_AACAMY tiegs_t_Page_50thm.jpg
e030ab656d0362525103772c060c6430
dffae2173f35b465912aa0d86f2b17d84ffc36c7
6715 F20101109_AABZUJ tiegs_t_Page_86thm.jpg
5b260d83f0c7bf39efb523f387245b33
d38122f63a6021ff7d3126a5e28e3bb7399be1c3
2311 F20101109_AACAFC tiegs_t_Page_78.txt
c488658a95787684f033657f2429a1fb
7f0dd072e270c547995f85c430c2bd5f03fcebcf
7150 F20101109_AABZZH tiegs_t_Page_82thm.jpg
11386b909a71c5847c31faeea65f928e
d9a751c44d8a7c4c26596df5e03a832b20e16f1c
F20101109_AACAAF tiegs_t_Page_28.tif
f83047a01e64e5bbd21dbaa3071b2c2d
6996df54723b946d54230b1fcda7300abf131d02
24907 F20101109_AACAMZ tiegs_t_Page_53.QC.jpg
24a55416b0cbff40f526c8c642163216
5c6b7fe08866f5d87082eac3f4e8a3c235190c25
F20101109_AACAKA tiegs_t_Page_83.tif
a6490949871d637911dd2abd28ac60ad
d3e381531a55b92bc3336048eee7c65de3616e20
5734 F20101109_AABZUK tiegs_t_Page_08.QC.jpg
b788bff55c8c5eaa163dbb21cab10b33
8444309fad398b112f87cd794b7bb8f0d9fc708d
4353 F20101109_AACAFD tiegs_t_Page_59thm.jpg
d0bb19aa2da7e8600c0b73e3b4d1d3b2
c65e5e7f8e8455ea3e2ad5c56c9f274fb92a66fb
F20101109_AABZZI tiegs_t_Page_66.tif
90ba411b8d84b0798d586b3b78cd317f
56cad5e16d1eea3f338db0c1c36057ebe72b4218
2238 F20101109_AACAAG tiegs_t_Page_54.txt
07f4da896af0eb97c17389178710e8c1
74e8648af94a7657b125350aa5bc03e418a90abe
F20101109_AACAKB tiegs_t_Page_84.tif
331bccaa622bf64aa463ccb11ca75620
76420f685296474e3743270d78c6ea0e5fd75baa
50063 F20101109_AABZUL tiegs_t_Page_06.jpg
c48309b0d296e8b9173764ad0064baf6
7454f59e6abeab352e940af4f08c55ca10b5c4f6
121076 F20101109_AACAFE tiegs_t_Page_48.jp2
ddb992711e8ad141eaeddfc031a6067e
e0d82b61ed86fc9bcb59412d7d8203f4873b483c
F20101109_AABZZJ tiegs_t_Page_76.tif
ae86b07f22b76b00ab85676cd6e83a49
196cce8dd29298bc846da19c6d380beb840cd00c
94184 F20101109_AACAAH tiegs_t_Page_05.pro
37974ff4a4a415a6697418814f44b6a7
ffc0088edb8512861326a3e59e718755aa9f3c4a
10648 F20101109_AACAKC tiegs_t_Page_07.pro
33c6199b36cea27643997df400e7eb9f
5dd231be2cfc2b2af99e7f6bb55ee1f2d31f4d2e
3220 F20101109_AACAFF tiegs_t_Page_57.txt
f96a4927fc20d85b9e662afcba20af8e
e5e5326485f2d554c8c720594887824c47e984ab
129400 F20101109_AABZZK tiegs_t_Page_83.jp2
c90c9989752665d76c660e856f0d17db
e86b29ac838ac364537dc81277fe176553d9a1e2
118891 F20101109_AACAAI tiegs_t_Page_69.jp2
da149762c3bebe13b187e3b3abd8394a
82977b7cf6724f7d10bcc254782f45bd2a5a2f7b
33854 F20101109_AABZUM tiegs_t_Page_58.jp2
bf2bfc2db7a3ae9167706eb3200a8de2
c4424a88e008e3a46d0724073eff9db817cc28a9
48309 F20101109_AACAKD tiegs_t_Page_17.pro
41f6093feafd373abf7c29b1398602b9
79a06707bd450743dd1828971f4ab00fcf7fcb85
F20101109_AACAFG tiegs_t_Page_61.tif
f1d7a0bcb30b5e004a9c10fbe23ea236
bae8fa2a5dd5aab215c4eeba2c11b580b16a351a
2187 F20101109_AABZZL tiegs_t_Page_62.txt
d4a0d37f049353fcdcd97635b6f4f8c4
e8e0b2827f713f30aacae037dbe2677a88cca883
6809 F20101109_AACAAJ tiegs_t_Page_81thm.jpg
26ac839c73363347fc8b15764de1c262
a662f09ea0e4c9dd5793a6ff623c7db698762f9c
117231 F20101109_AABZUN tiegs_t_Page_47.jp2
fc54e83ea9337d39c6b343823f20d6f1
e7c7e5cb501a43059cf309541b1cda62d9befdf5
17492 F20101109_AACAKE tiegs_t_Page_18.pro
06550f593f71c7f3fd1a0dd4161abdfd
fa493b7e12e69f136fecebbe43614b3bcf7003df
66295 F20101109_AACAFH tiegs_t_Page_50.jpg
d6871bd941450fe976198366d5a170fb
ef1414986a93cccc3ede64f0a04f896c94043be3
2077 F20101109_AABZZM tiegs_t_Page_41.txt
297f8cc8699630460970c333dc13496e
886ca75456c1344ae4775f9be6a0ccaa377a0f64
85435 F20101109_AACAAK tiegs_t_Page_56.jp2
c0860e4e76267e28e51755459de59725
ecde80d35441192cb79476b43667d93d74a351ee
486691 F20101109_AABZUO tiegs_t.pdf
a1a455b74d483cac849f5ca8874722ec
f9d2536f26c9cf972ed6c8c4224e1e7ed2b20f03
47222 F20101109_AACAKF tiegs_t_Page_19.pro
af0e7e5fc7a411aa3e0cefe826a59aa6
3b8ee40db0f7bd2f1a1cfd308fdcb15c3be6e21a
87399 F20101109_AACAFI tiegs_t_Page_09.jp2
f3982b1a924714512a5ed287f31f322c
1a70aea7a4d9c172d3fed5f6695196727b3c78b7
79760 F20101109_AABZZN tiegs_t_Page_39.jpg
43bf163201a7529a2e995d8db74298d2
3fbc83427ab0924761945ae4142783272bcb07a3
19471 F20101109_AACAAL tiegs_t_Page_05.QC.jpg
6e91ae163b1547eabdd29961407f2dd0
e4ecd15604890c5791b75c4ed7f2e6af944bc33c
112407 F20101109_AABZUP tiegs_t_Page_31.jp2
1168890f0d33ada9c721d6e93c0a0a75
c3d29f1bdc984f7ac25fd7b7232e82cc5122a327
57227 F20101109_AACAKG tiegs_t_Page_20.pro
78323e2dfb9aac744deb326e3d52456e
0e9c72ac7a2df3189bcb303a02cef9ed36dc0d4f
F20101109_AACAFJ tiegs_t_Page_62.tif
258ff04f83175f0306b2d6b158641d8f
e195e9c0bbe6663f3a0a0b42a6886dc8d29a6d7a
53679 F20101109_AACAAM tiegs_t_Page_72.pro
7b3934058dc0535d03229009380a666b
219a00b53c3464a8e5e21a5e24c9ded19cc771c4
6640 F20101109_AABZUQ tiegs_t_Page_44thm.jpg
34fe15d624b14afb1009931c4f8cbf9a
a42e08769827b9d7dde8e1aabeac8a5fdfd7256f
56123 F20101109_AACAKH tiegs_t_Page_22.pro
1539db2a42c1e44868684a6641842dda
5d632e344079a2ce09e3427c08c9f6ccbaf4e1c6
3117 F20101109_AACAFK tiegs_t_Page_87thm.jpg
785d8b5899fb20fa566fb8b5aaa6e95c
b107200393d06d8549c31327727cbb60d7fd642e
341470 F20101109_AABZZO tiegs_t_Page_07.jp2
8e6f1a1c687ba23a8e472c3dcd5c0fa3
234668c457b11bc1ef9adb3906bd7b0c6c4901b7
56195 F20101109_AACAAN tiegs_t_Page_28.pro
1fe8fc01b8dfe08b0b01e5c3bed46745
8525636c67fe29a2de57b9c7a6de71d4dc528ba0
1785 F20101109_AABZUR tiegs_t_Page_50.txt
a7337be6844bbc6ce6b8f4daf0c96dfc
14050e6d2070c21a4992573cd36cff72372b89c4
58568 F20101109_AACAKI tiegs_t_Page_30.pro
085474597133c28cd33be422e6c2e511
d1cd598c4aa841fce29e45392a9127bb7ce108bf
80219 F20101109_AACAFL tiegs_t_Page_81.jpg
a85e1d5d4ac8167a2c4034ed5fdfdbcf
4cf88879d8dc3aafbb94d9ce3845f8eb24d975b1
58717 F20101109_AABZZP tiegs_t_Page_75.jpg
f4f686b589f8288816aca3616a0615c9
8674bd62b1dcc27d8481199e52fec9ace26a347b
F20101109_AACAAO tiegs_t_Page_21.tif
d941aa6515bbc0b47af44f073543cc4a
cb771da0fa4e47163d4b00ce87bb0b8c72a3b6f5
F20101109_AABZUS tiegs_t_Page_03.tif
ad2c458ce30b7a71f6d989a40115a1ac
a7a40127e18ada7f192246be3e02eefdadd6c19c
57178 F20101109_AACAKJ tiegs_t_Page_33.pro
821e4053080318f44fa1d38fe3c1d0c7
ab2832e7326a14872d989f48bcb8a6d92e736b5f
26038 F20101109_AACAFM tiegs_t_Page_20.QC.jpg
67ebaa548fe6e0e044e7d1a9558a7f64
b5e0151b289c30da503f1129155089755ca0ef7a
10790 F20101109_AABZZQ tiegs_t_Page_18.QC.jpg
d728ede5869b9eee9cfeba6f727aa112
40cb88ccec6b2bb9b000487130e0b359a1c34a62
51108 F20101109_AABZUT tiegs_t_Page_14.pro
dceb26f37dd4a967949aefb260921079
8e216d83f70bafe62b752e8e1ad1053110480a77
55732 F20101109_AACAKK tiegs_t_Page_38.pro
75b2f74f25624f83d5a70c927bba8dc6
4befc3434352489c96377c110e1c425d229a4293
130431 F20101109_AACAFN tiegs_t_Page_84.jp2
27d6ecb75b4e98ce56acefa2bce06031
aa93f3fd9b60b9b587eefb22aebc7a62e81657ca
F20101109_AABZZR tiegs_t_Page_14.tif
b1fdd230a2e53b9f3a42030c6e05906d
6e81344674e6883066bbc8fe26eac0f041d4c414
1051981 F20101109_AACAAP tiegs_t_Page_05.jp2
be7575f2fbf0337a84a5ed41d1576f1a
8247c5505e7ef0e4c31969037c93f3f01c79ee31
44741 F20101109_AABZUU tiegs_t_Page_50.pro
d5ccd8fbecfbb06fb72cfe344b8713a3
6f462895993032aca278a4ac55c83aa21fbb393c
49444 F20101109_AACAKL tiegs_t_Page_44.pro
482fbcf207614ee8fea948a713f867cc
0c5fbfbdc9dca473355bd46c4e72ae9085e72682
25635 F20101109_AACAFO tiegs_t_Page_35.QC.jpg
8918c079749b34488b39f023bffc8f3c
37742561e4363413587ae574095c01c53c29f9eb
187 F20101109_AABZZS tiegs_t_Page_77.txt
6f3babbc0ede47d80d685ef6fd098ae8
e28c94b25fd614073e70493cf07a9791a6f75a6f
F20101109_AACAAQ tiegs_t_Page_71.tif
7c887150eaead186a1f825932e1b794d
698fb93407f268a86542794b513f119503a56dbf
55473 F20101109_AABZUV tiegs_t_Page_23.pro
6bb016752d5ab0256f20fa38dc066631
4a7067c3e16d2e6389a90f590a284989c52d315b
56834 F20101109_AACAKM tiegs_t_Page_48.pro
232c1aafe78bb19eec2163df9438ebb2
b006bd6ee83e5dcf828b5f40484f2eb4e034cb61
2564 F20101109_AACAFP tiegs_t_Page_06.txt
193419a4a789529d282588b1c1cb33a0
e825a6812371a9e69fbbb2546ce349ebe0d710e6
704 F20101109_AABZZT tiegs_t_Page_59.txt
5619ce79161d1e6d6b543bdb6f2cabbe
f5783bddbddee0809294d2eacf7ce9e7e01c18d6
25062 F20101109_AACAAR tiegs_t_Page_40.QC.jpg
641e1bb4d2e001bfa94fba41133739ed
996bfece5f9bc3c84df66f9462457386c2d0166d
F20101109_AABZUW tiegs_t_Page_02.tif
2b7b47f6edf2e8c8be7867e62c91e301
17ca0f3819a095b97d7c9dfa553d105dd0c99736
58035 F20101109_AACAKN tiegs_t_Page_49.pro
d610bb1ee0dafd9c41c5e62fbb5fb164
fdbe4bcc53c0fbfecd8e145e8eb0a598f050f737
114615 F20101109_AACAFQ tiegs_t_Page_73.jp2
547aa3ff795203d6b856cac75b41fe43
b7c70f71b36020a8be63a4b82d42292f680e95b4
7024 F20101109_AABZZU tiegs_t_Page_68thm.jpg
48f670e39c6119e6f2e438c61478157b
c721ea4e985935dcf7a3af3b6d7964b5e823ce01
2248 F20101109_AACAAS tiegs_t_Page_25.txt
04edf9dfd6ab106f704c29254c9a3c65
f12704b5c9e48ce5b1de1c884f1580c16b095a22
85896 F20101109_AABZUX tiegs_t_Page_82.jpg
1acac63ded923ffcfe3e76cafd711622
3ae49e401cf31956c7ccebaf6398d73ddc575bb4
5350 F20101109_AACAKO tiegs_t_Page_51.pro
c3fc92f860435291ff40b01e3388fc95
38689de3a86bc4444b53582bc90e9ee1f60b27f5
25973 F20101109_AACAFR tiegs_t_Page_63.QC.jpg
de6fec4105f41324994a07e0834f85e6
a8bd3891f997a9ce1a38678b8651b5784b9f453d
F20101109_AABZZV tiegs_t_Page_77.tif
282c9688841a631b042d174499867ebe
5146d11c7af1407521e2ffd5c7c68af6a4ca7fce
F20101109_AACAAT tiegs_t_Page_22.tif
2800125c57f95aa66023872e65853a53
bf3166be6878f4dc5057cb33bc8d6afc87a7752a
F20101109_AABZSA tiegs_t_Page_01.tif
b3e4dc157e40aad574aeddd5633627af
d517e809921c6d3d228d5f96bac73486bc46162f
56870 F20101109_AABZUY tiegs_t_Page_63.pro
743565db1ddb90ac90c381aa6a0f7ad0
4f031fb633b5e1399786cebc6858ddf6e0caeeea
50864 F20101109_AACAKP tiegs_t_Page_52.pro
ca9954ecb027a8ebfbd25402828c2cdc
3ff41993397a92d9461c34da60fc62b2d2354374
1361 F20101109_AACAFS tiegs_t_Page_03thm.jpg
2529be71c1e73c6ae8538ed7606bda30
dbc4db403abfe25f430fe821fa0fdcba51ee65d8
55847 F20101109_AABZZW tiegs_t_Page_32.pro
c47649ba9967eee11f9515ca7a606e86
6a16e2331e8172f8aacee5f4c9c1bb1528cb5b70
2485 F20101109_AACAAU tiegs_t_Page_83.txt
74e8d2e559b68eff81ce06f454e7431b
208922797310b24fbea273a430da5d0e5c482b93
F20101109_AABZSB tiegs_t_Page_04.tif
acd07e22a7595eef6b7195ea3d353814
f9df9679186f2f3de2ed8c27cbcfddb67284c42c
F20101109_AABZUZ tiegs_t_Page_64.tif
136e380fe1f2e2992519798001a90b93
a2dcff146aef38117e096e7ee542da1d42828a10
56977 F20101109_AACAKQ tiegs_t_Page_54.pro
8da71e82b64c68b16f5e75bbba9bfbf6
990fddb74195cbd7c03808ae702cf23dc43bf877
52695 F20101109_AACAFT tiegs_t_Page_70.pro
9f12803c3a8e2d6f659cb49958589410
c8bf57e28514286bd13bd75adebd3f42fceb294e
F20101109_AABZZX tiegs_t_Page_36.tif
0fac28fd7a82402703c47f58a5fedf0c
2f22196e64a6a2c46be923a2c1bbf6b6f0b524f4
F20101109_AACAAV tiegs_t_Page_09.tif
469577ed20b282e8f77df369988be36d
a1077ff97605288090dd919872f2dca632a3fe8e
80059 F20101109_AABZSC tiegs_t_Page_20.jpg
5a4fce8999a0c98dcada9eef55b79cf4
0eb5a05ea186f668badf81144360e698a33ce3f4
15868 F20101109_AACAKR tiegs_t_Page_58.pro
bb3caff138eff320576b90505eb4ecbd
19f3d6a7b8ffba72ffdd592a2d9bd9cfb1a37da0
F20101109_AABZXA tiegs_t_Page_72.tif
3b28d17c11f357c52db42d455e1712d4
38e4e3f95b45985648e7074ac39459cbdf97e134
6867 F20101109_AABZZY tiegs_t_Page_73thm.jpg
2a583e08b531cb66f2840b7e2a4ee587
e24cdb13f82f58470e818ccd21421c58dfa5ad8b
F20101109_AACAAW tiegs_t_Page_45.tif
1f7d1a927d27ab1a57ffdd1fa3105ed5
8878efa31aef52f9351602740cc1cdeda4075177
F20101109_AABZSD tiegs_t_Page_16.tif
767a9d04bd2287a0d20203a0bf7da080
241e1bda0916b407b0bdc929bcd054a377f53186
5945 F20101109_AACAKS tiegs_t_Page_60.pro
13571fe6f3a215347f8ae38c4dec0abf
f546599b7b483d5dbbba23899404916038573850
25502 F20101109_AACAFU tiegs_t_Page_38.QC.jpg
1ec1c5492e847c2c4203868089da3928
09288a8ab70a51159de96a1d51e683b048523e9e
119828 F20101109_AABZXB tiegs_t_Page_24.jp2
30bb32b7d79136d2fa80d96cbc1256f6
ebae17ad260046b86d7ee2972142ce7f688a03d4
54546 F20101109_AABZZZ tiegs_t_Page_71.pro
6648d4967b62f740d3211a17b82bd4d4
af418464de26068da7a04a4522dbc76fda2df998
53030 F20101109_AACAAX tiegs_t_Page_34.pro
b370041da1049681c6f265e9411081b6
453393ae500b84892aa9015a539d73966d0b9642
F20101109_AABZSE tiegs_t_Page_19.tif
6a60de75c23c2b17919a2c96572eb0e8
f3b81571403e327b35dec58581999a348f197653
51991 F20101109_AACAKT tiegs_t_Page_64.pro
f2be78983eaf7c9454ac07ca12c8cc01
425e03f9ec96052619a7c7bddd0cf173433aa587
2139 F20101109_AACAFV tiegs_t_Page_27.txt
a2fa400d3ee2e3c1e59e7b8a86b0b57f
a1ea8f8f21eb3d906fc66130bbee2e78acab8e27
24576 F20101109_AABZXC tiegs_t_Page_45.QC.jpg
5aa5714d45f32563835518e18378a121
67015163d3cc851d4481cfcd2efc98258c1857e2
11181 F20101109_AACAAY tiegs_t_Page_57.QC.jpg
db53f7e8d2d4cd7ea6cbbc77984f984b
00201ad1b25c532e844eeae5f975fa489b4edbb7
1779 F20101109_AABZSF tiegs_t_Page_77thm.jpg
18d13fddcaa3e5ba1837df3bbb6d3828
6efb7f41b5b4f57fbb8777b34fa0fe219438d904
52783 F20101109_AACAKU tiegs_t_Page_73.pro
e2136857dd61932e8d7b86f2fdbd2bcc
d08a0977c50649d6aff358a057169684e4f7bbff
6665 F20101109_AACAFW tiegs_t_Page_14thm.jpg
e03b77a0d7e31c980f4dbffbf2120cb4
fbdf7f418d5b7c417438eca452be1d685c18eb48
7023 F20101109_AABZXD tiegs_t_Page_62thm.jpg
652ca94785beb5d833b0743518821efc
7046f480b7797511fdbcbce8dad41ba9a441ffc7
24230 F20101109_AACAAZ tiegs_t_Page_86.QC.jpg
629b0225e0ebdb04c12a8b6b7d7eb18d
ebf3e6dd4980ed6be70ec48988e16b0579c8be0b
25621 F20101109_AABZSG tiegs_t_Page_47.QC.jpg
cc8ce9ea9792c5aee3caf0aecbd77faf
b92ab3231312ef095281af3747afaa329c5d2d7e
39887 F20101109_AACAKV tiegs_t_Page_75.pro
64f3498b61f856c39779809a33c5fba4
5e2e88f24ebd95d523053b9fe096a29cf4f0982a
73962 F20101109_AACAFX tiegs_t_Page_53.jpg
f1bee005d04b3da6330e5cba256d8e76
f7487fa7cebe75ae8d1af338f3dff135ddefa164
F20101109_AABZXE tiegs_t_Page_38.tif
f2e73713b8dc548a0d99a72c48077f35
72104e7770dbf6d565d01e6d5a5a3d0e887444f5
14517 F20101109_AACAKW tiegs_t_Page_79.pro
e87b38c68c512f5bb88bdc6add2f50fa
77f328b4068f227f81bdc87f107e4a7567145dbb
75280 F20101109_AACAFY tiegs_t_Page_34.jpg
f057569c70c9f4304d6b552acad2bb1a
f0cc23cfb55e63808c645bad353140faa21c5bb4
79966 F20101109_AABZXF tiegs_t_Page_65.jpg
b9da90d333984a5c050c02afbbb1beab
e010658df51bbd587eb1fc04c6292e55f1a7cf66
F20101109_AABZSH tiegs_t_Page_74.tif
ea4be5077d04ce16c40161cf8163030e
85f307a9bd783e814efdf157302f30708545a047
1555 F20101109_AACADA tiegs_t_Page_56.txt
e5df13a7132c9bd56065d09dfdbb15e2
b21d9729d292081c2ebcc138eabee295c905217a
60041 F20101109_AACAKX tiegs_t_Page_84.pro
5398617caa782b05f74a240e4da4071b
9ef4ef38a2b7ce23682526689cc7ce85d98ccbda
321730 F20101109_AACAFZ tiegs_t_Page_08.jp2
46937bd26c8c57d521073c9be2396f3e
bdd39063a8c650b0e36c6407f355308d686d8d9c
54272 F20101109_AABZXG tiegs_t_Page_66.pro
52a4fd0ae1b4b8b1a3df6db67f946d34
29290167dc159fb814671b8f0490071826a9f405
36891 F20101109_AABZSI tiegs_t_Page_59.jpg
89230556b6702e34810179c7e878135e
5caf0bcbf2e69b196ccf5932a8fe561174fab108
7134 F20101109_AACADB tiegs_t_Page_33thm.jpg
6be8ef58f2a8501fc82057ca6f800c0c
f8a1e8c907e88b9640030b5a7fd0060b380e0eee
79 F20101109_AACAKY tiegs_t_Page_02.txt
8209dac40a82328fc649c481c4279810
bfc5429447eacbac7e09aef5a7d676aa92e2d297
122433 F20101109_AABZXH tiegs_t_Page_39.jp2
5ee1a309fc232969805e63c86fb9bfef
a0787fe96e1515b8e2f4844cc26db86446662f42
77024 F20101109_AABZSJ tiegs_t_Page_26.jpg
3aeecdfea1eef79824d4fb9d135570eb
11b389393491a9f3261dcefde012c5777f13d8f9
F20101109_AACADC tiegs_t_Page_55.tif
feafb9a7f0ceb595f34781c6ecf53120
9f884ad806f5d26dda4e0f8b3362efb5b2a35c02
73102 F20101109_AACAIA tiegs_t_Page_15.jpg
fb3945c8829a14c680722656b923e51d
9875b6c2e8585c85818d7c953cd4e267da5833be
2282 F20101109_AABZXI tiegs_t_Page_37.txt
05c81a488eb602c1c689608b2e5e6774
8a419f1ae18345678561d4fd284e0e3ca2f6db8b
117133 F20101109_AABZSK tiegs_t_Page_38.jp2
2c910d00a7809ccf2c4c7843bea6e55b
ad711d1168d466a41dec63c8257eedfe42b10e92
2082 F20101109_AACADD tiegs_t_Page_34.txt
2d0d44b9f13e1ae05258da06f14a0370
6e7a70947a38593de5f518be0e539336348a7765
454 F20101109_AACAKZ tiegs_t_Page_04.txt
0b6351dd288ac67d12c7d6a119309cde
92ff0c2135e24c0866a51e6a3d2d92e76d07f395
71040 F20101109_AACAIB tiegs_t_Page_16.jpg
fc9db5841afc583bc4777eb41b3072c9
8cec6a74bb543a6694e392b570ada9aedee732eb
2167 F20101109_AABZSL tiegs_t_Page_52.txt
c22e3b6be9944a26f88cbf7410893749
57fcb7e59a87e3c0e2873a38d2ae067cfa08d87e
31589 F20101109_AACADE tiegs_t_Page_79.jpg
a2fa57b227ec58d07a29557bebb55f88
6ca773ae66476921746e55dbffefe054758780fd
81656 F20101109_AABZXJ tiegs_t_Page_30.jpg
f700bbe533275119932a3f3d4b2a3589
0eccd25acdf9335475b78bdd799200fc10ae7f04
72840 F20101109_AACAIC tiegs_t_Page_21.jpg
fa17c173535163e6ae5a229e6ffe648a
e069282f5decc3b1df49cea5ef038231836c4d8b
61783 F20101109_AABZSM tiegs_t_Page_82.pro
7d516a82fd45702e54ce6d0159eabde0
e4a174fca26cfd1046a155008798a568d0bad199
636 F20101109_AACADF tiegs_t_Page_79.txt
8b66f08bfc6c57cccc0fc63d409e40a1
1ebb84c0e2dfcc9e673f246ec531bfd7fc8ada19
80970 F20101109_AABZXK tiegs_t_Page_84.jpg
129133c86b66720346a8ba7f0e27264e
a2cc3c807271bb7a718072dcc223a758e8fce956
6944 F20101109_AACANA tiegs_t_Page_55thm.jpg
a43da27bc2e6c5a51a1d7f7e93971131
b15f63216d7e12eb9a84e46eba9bcd02f1e84f48
79144 F20101109_AACAID tiegs_t_Page_23.jpg
d4e382c7d1d66b805f853b1ca3048daa
0c18196e6e7e8462d7da3ec3e4204edef14e8d5e
80016 F20101109_AABZSN tiegs_t_Page_22.jpg
f8b7b85a6d20d4d7fd4f5bdd6aecab7a
60d32c09f011b662b907e06ff7b2e7a09cdec91a
80971 F20101109_AACADG tiegs_t_Page_74.jp2
b628674bdc26ba48f09639eeaa2e007b
23b7ca8ef542174e06f071aa337e23cea10b6d02
F20101109_AABZXL tiegs_t_Page_48.tif
860156cb6bd9c4f40b823e355ddf6b48
1981118e456530babbe04f96d13e4f7ee157d330
3307 F20101109_AACANB tiegs_t_Page_57thm.jpg
acb25d864387f680b0201f6df51153bd
65539ff5b157bfb0a20c7360be5ea12ddb0a0650
78725 F20101109_AACAIE tiegs_t_Page_24.jpg
092ac5f1d8c0cf21af5b46b2fb85063f
7d6313b5b34d524afa7367f65276dca8f7d7e151
F20101109_AABZSO tiegs_t_Page_68.tif
e8b2b23c48d83db9016b4b49da4025b4
683f913fd8e103c929b8f5de3b987f7ce03c0db4
30724 F20101109_AACADH tiegs_t_Page_18.jpg
7c5a2e79670741d2d536f5b776c5d391
4f2065c86c61d89088bc9a924dc37dd0ac684adc
13154 F20101109_AACANC tiegs_t_Page_59.QC.jpg
0dec93d97407d489a5b6a0718dd49d6e
4a3db3c0f5d91602b85d140923bda38df009377c
80595 F20101109_AACAIF tiegs_t_Page_25.jpg
8ab0a8b6ed2483cc617537c5e483b877
1f28bce768898f308ccbcd6d5ac9e3daddee06ab
2127 F20101109_AABZSP tiegs_t_Page_36.txt
7789d33bb88979d9a50a4d498459d1d8
ae172e1b94ca40698d50638a97f4af7a48e0b306
116146 F20101109_AACADI tiegs_t_Page_46.jp2
2826c26bc78844dd81907e483d94979d
8d5f4ec96b14e1a6e5ce19007f6d5e00cb20aeff
11099 F20101109_AABZXM tiegs_t_Page_58.QC.jpg
c0b95afcee6596cdd2c6c65f860ba54c
1c502dbc5982f47d0a2c8df5e9597ebeda6d3ce8
24231 F20101109_AACAND tiegs_t_Page_64.QC.jpg
a1c6cb2839f8d9751e3f2a0841ea377e
b5e8f863d3061d8ec88760d77ebd959c9a76df83
79111 F20101109_AACAIG tiegs_t_Page_32.jpg
069d55a6c12ff92cfff73a8b12f6ab32
120a73809b5ee2e757b6b401972b83cf6f6090eb
7085 F20101109_AABZSQ tiegs_t_Page_22thm.jpg
466053d2585d037f8503457e8f2a868f
b47b960f91ae9aab1941e4d71f400d2a6d2f980d
54740 F20101109_AACADJ tiegs_t_Page_42.pro
20f2e84ebb4ea4b3230d1a5eff9584fe
cd2077215e27ff632a676ceb161ef287595a6480
24711 F20101109_AABZXN tiegs_t_Page_46.QC.jpg
eef2aca8f0d2841f81c6339ca566a1e5
5cae996f5d0748c123d7fc71e07e3cd33ce53830
7069 F20101109_AACANE tiegs_t_Page_65thm.jpg
4a43f6d43d104498ac756bbc07b590d5
720e90ed6ce2c0482f94c1a2d8c1e3cc30574111
77663 F20101109_AACAIH tiegs_t_Page_35.jpg
1487b43b6cf960d5a4c55060ff09142c
91196ce68db5dad5ccb1da9e0fd406058956a9f4
2180 F20101109_AABZSR tiegs_t_Page_42.txt
cc5057ab6867b9676d35c9d0b2da41eb
12bc1ca25ac7a3ef8eec3e76cb1e0eda77db2cd9
117388 F20101109_AACADK tiegs_t_Page_11.jp2
1424ffda34f7bc0ac4f2c95d308895fd
330a6d360477dfe0bc4ca833e0ee019c53884f31
2223 F20101109_AABZXO tiegs_t_Page_48.txt
973a2976165e218df05b0b3aa1470ab6
b6a55000a4db3ea443f232ce268b3eb16805780f
25890 F20101109_AACANF tiegs_t_Page_69.QC.jpg
fd8593121d4305e4b27444911fd62dab
8abab232b0b65094654605180d4265243e438ec9
80550 F20101109_AACAII tiegs_t_Page_37.jpg
8619127398152dbe0beca2a38fd06b31
19a7810982f7b79f1383e5f4fc00e8a97447ee63
67711 F20101109_AABZSS tiegs_t_Page_76.jp2
80acd144930909ffb8720a4f5e3551c5
c113e130214434b6ad9ed9c3491fff62c4f2bad4
2499 F20101109_AACADL tiegs_t_Page_82.txt
3a390d77fd6114046bae06557ac5994b
7c33aa82fa0c4d75c5dfe190ccd7f6214cb00af2
F20101109_AABZXP tiegs_t_Page_15.tif
e778e77d51d2389f539bf447ef48692f
52d11ccfc14c8e64a8c2b6414f927835ab9b88a7
24614 F20101109_AACANG tiegs_t_Page_70.QC.jpg
221cbb68e4fdecf860c8fbc8ff918355
380226364d5c997eca5f6e55b5192dfe7a3dd7df
74103 F20101109_AACAIJ tiegs_t_Page_41.jpg
9ae8029087aeda7e451fdff944ffbbc8
d7e41c22aa9fbc69ed7af59d42366ec463b213e6
125149 F20101109_AABZST tiegs_t_Page_80.jp2
f4d226861b993b547e1b3f2e5052b3ec
70bf31a5aa25582aa4508fac0bb998b215845693
102887 F20101109_AACADM tiegs_t_Page_10.jp2
fcbdf0ea2d15680d41e905d0d318e316
cfdc3aa3e0ff72eab54f4a3abb46fc5dcc0189b2
26731 F20101109_AABZXQ tiegs_t_Page_37.QC.jpg
b99bbbcef9522c35f62a403ce18a16da
0872b5a96c87e646720be82e61c897a031b421cb
6887 F20101109_AACANH tiegs_t_Page_70thm.jpg
90161410813d7da261ebc04e18fbee75
15108ede21639e60172cfe4e79882eb9e1d3b4a7
71515 F20101109_AACAIK tiegs_t_Page_44.jpg
bec0f5364a71f419c76503fbe15e13c0
d3c054dc01f7f7b2a31533b8b78026c137ece3d4
2119 F20101109_AABZSU tiegs_t_Page_40.txt
18c552babef3a00b3f40da994606b262
a9264e98738badfa3879df5f5715dfc96b44b02a
F20101109_AACADN tiegs_t_Page_78.tif
429dd6f8fbf4b2647af65fef67d9e0ed
b0e0b8af2c712da4abda9fa9535dafb1b85a0349
102253 F20101109_AABZXR tiegs_t_Page_19.jp2
7c60bb35f8729a270a1b503677b764f6
f97654c332ea81e804a976ea0ce2de5f13d0a02e
6617 F20101109_AACANI tiegs_t_Page_71thm.jpg
d3a7dd548ae13dc42e2084592fd77d2a
1a928fe0caa4dd68c2ca5c9a0569780098719039
79466 F20101109_AACAIL tiegs_t_Page_54.jpg
0bdd85c47b3a43282026094aa283e8ab
ecf55ffc8ac0ba2e25d5cbb7c33a5a70bfe94965
48156 F20101109_AABZSV tiegs_t_Page_43.pro
5536f16406bbc7d6cef2ffe0603cfaa8
1e12b1bd1ecf441220439463b3edc60ee9d5dc05
1760 F20101109_AACADO tiegs_t_Page_09.txt
b26ae1d91070a546c06b5fd35c892deb
c796b929ad62a72014b6ee6a3701e831acd1c46c
6633 F20101109_AABZXS tiegs_t_Page_80thm.jpg
b8503e8dd04040e4b75278177ab0f991
4b4387d9c039aad4a9d8938f8698c6868b96d962
25088 F20101109_AACANJ tiegs_t_Page_73.QC.jpg
b8204a4ec4e03caa8f8cd779c602bf23
b2a777e6a2adb96aae447e39f410ebcbeb271bb7
18222 F20101109_AACAIM tiegs_t_Page_60.jpg
617bc83389a64cdd7bbd87716c661789
6fd91f41519bcf6da082432bdda900f4369e90ae
1984 F20101109_AABZSW tiegs_t_Page_16.txt
63c8a4147c806e1267abfde0115bc812
f725606c65beddd1cfe36d32760eac5dd3dabca2
26700 F20101109_AACADP tiegs_t_Page_30.QC.jpg
f038986c31ef67ea853bef29a0236915
add89da19aa7de64175c645262f3a10d3fcd2196
6990 F20101109_AABZXT tiegs_t_Page_24thm.jpg
89aadd88c74b33e0e4af7b215cdae128
82fc31c01c6004c4efb879f787d29da7812e9c8c
4744 F20101109_AACANK tiegs_t_Page_76thm.jpg
c3b983cc029be2e24e0174846d2a2afa
6b8fa4d3665fabdaa485acf8207a41f860d43e48
76807 F20101109_AACAIN tiegs_t_Page_72.jpg
f4054dc700fca525a3dcd4ff24c60394
0d50e76fbcb285051d6364a7d8223d876206936f
37156 F20101109_AABZSX tiegs_t_Page_74.pro
5cad56fc03395d1f5e6e6457e366636e
3da90a368928fbb1b5227cd1afbcf2d5c0944a64
6458 F20101109_AACADQ tiegs_t_Page_07.QC.jpg
00f5d62c6edb5fadf29a06f3c0dfa799
11199a363bc8cc53980f28bc088fea428828423e
18430 F20101109_AABZXU tiegs_t_Page_74.QC.jpg
28e36169aa831f8baa8acf7767bff403
e0bfe34bbdec2e4dafda44c265d77e9563621da4
4954 F20101109_AACANL tiegs_t_Page_77.QC.jpg
19ba2308b7fe250a02a52c1fafc2123e
0d1ab84b18bdced853e8c80e9452cfd28419c552
75675 F20101109_AACAIO tiegs_t_Page_73.jpg
912e6f1928224e84015b3eeadf737831
f9c0d744a72b6cecd439c9dc2a98c68c127d4f79
91073 F20101109_AABZSY tiegs_t_Page_78.jpg
41ea441947f8405d76c5963a738e72c7
4443a05cb40902334bdda8fe23a29d3b31052381
F20101109_AACADR tiegs_t_Page_17.tif
c860e8fe9a53945b4ac67ee97a50f2ae
c16fb0b65cfce7e50f458fe2efa8573e3a8261cb
80272 F20101109_AABZXV tiegs_t_Page_48.jpg
08c1b529099a075e09fa83da734a27d9
e59e92217d43aa1756c0790e6f092ff7f369db11
F20101109_AABZQA tiegs_t_Page_60thm.jpg
7970a935a2fc75461e00fc60325e84a2
24b4b871d37f1ddf5cb1ab58f43ccd76e964a191
9574 F20101109_AACANM tiegs_t_Page_79.QC.jpg
21d898e4ca6dda481b1d75de2f98ab96
f2485766655df58ab00b2a0d42726b02347d972f
80848 F20101109_AACAIP tiegs_t_Page_80.jpg
26d90b3271b8707a2455b7b9e7d87238
a028282eb7ce6d1083c4b2f92f5421575ad765f4
6731 F20101109_AABZSZ tiegs_t_Page_84thm.jpg
942f6b2107b72bb3931f3616fe0719d8
cb96a36af8ee09ff4ff64b40e1513e2ba3dc9dfd
120330 F20101109_AABZXW tiegs_t_Page_33.jp2
d3868bc173985ae994170d42a63f3eb1
1dcd347171e58bfcd9804688feadb5c929375039
F20101109_AABZQB tiegs_t_Page_80.tif
93bea9f0bd8aed3c3de11522369396b7
0a90a7cadf71d5cbda5e02722df60e6f384a1128
2768 F20101109_AACANN tiegs_t_Page_79thm.jpg
f02a849dd2e50f1966a07ee3bf3b702c
1b01176b006039610144613ec7ae6b083ed9a4ef
4827 F20101109_AACAIQ tiegs_t_Page_02.jp2
ad12fce53a9c5005afafe6b0196f672a
d0f3537c3ff42c43ce02827bf1b60b59d39dfbc4
6310 F20101109_AACADS tiegs_t_Page_51.QC.jpg
f412898db49da5c903cc5246d05d0b6b
2bca3fd7fde12b07abbfddbb046943630221b831
76938 F20101109_AABZXX tiegs_t_Page_67.jpg
78c2c7ddd4ff2022669be0894bc880a7
ed20db2a89aaf2eab718cb422b86cd8cb118ab61
6798 F20101109_AABZQC tiegs_t_Page_40thm.jpg
961b20feaa83ae0b75f611e74ada6a8d
e3fec82ea998dc338096a586689592ad34da4f70
6844 F20101109_AACANO tiegs_t_Page_85thm.jpg
33f9f6c233394081fb0d60ea198b6705
c181e9767c7fc8d272f2671bd1e91a2c1c505bd1
4855 F20101109_AACAIR tiegs_t_Page_03.jp2
c837596c01399f0bdb1d03ec4e2287ad
0dd3cbd7d32d7354f47741ef4420e7da4800f301
F20101109_AACADT tiegs_t_Page_18.tif
2a68bf95ce59532ca59d0a7306d6c16c
f48796a1350062349984970e1173a1bdb036fb69
6083 F20101109_AABZVA tiegs_t_Page_78thm.jpg
ecbc2907f976ece16c76889250db2a6f
ac60de716453cfe6b1e9cb3877cecb2bab4503b1
79467 F20101109_AABZXY tiegs_t_Page_62.jpg
b42ae69929cb41813176728e0d6c04f7
7c4195b855968f39874d9d04744745deb7b41a4e
10396 F20101109_AABZQD tiegs_t_Page_04.pro
d565a8fc3264f65bb8f0bba1d9fec4e0
d76cf1622ca9048ca61b787f7135110d6a2de69e
100781 F20101109_AACANP UFE0022314_00001.mets
afc2f567cb36815de5584c307197dfec
147ef97b95975a7e5922a25039ebb73739f4bf4e
26005 F20101109_AACAIS tiegs_t_Page_04.jp2
cb0036b543ea2371c0cb26c315d2231a
979f5f6f0901e9460789a75fefd2eb04c78835e3
9809 F20101109_AACADU tiegs_t_Page_03.jpg
d4e1d7957ea9eea2b276ea6d3e237e9e
331df8cc349fd1dd64ef0d8542749d60035c9a1b
6708 F20101109_AABZVB tiegs_t_Page_52thm.jpg
01ae5b48a920240a90c2ac6a17732190
e657e064830b711a651bfadeeaf9b9bec357bce6
25189 F20101109_AABZXZ tiegs_t_Page_12.QC.jpg
ee4c4d4e990dd468f0275aab32524b65
b8e6274330cf840807aec7642102ec07ba1ce307
53057 F20101109_AABZQE tiegs_t_Page_13.pro
3f72c46f03badb61c49850116dd8771e
38e9598eeef182ac4540d54df38040e141e488ea
112618 F20101109_AACAIT tiegs_t_Page_14.jp2
5a68567275c1de7bf71782657da24c21
4442f50f412ca7063e9ec5e8796cd7d5bf2fcfc0
79489 F20101109_AACADV tiegs_t_Page_55.jpg
64ce7aaa93c31684cee5be83eb201219
491a9d7361640bdcf471f898348bd6bc7f05a823
81408 F20101109_AABZVC tiegs_t_Page_49.jpg
e653229a9e44da14c9df4dc3929a4964
ee290a40d7f1c5b2c743e9992b39647e52d48359
109705 F20101109_AACAIU tiegs_t_Page_16.jp2
ec1e1b61a6b6370246f45cb54dcc5d5c
c2c213cc6cb88cfeae5cf6a862472e8572eea551
79817 F20101109_AACADW tiegs_t_Page_63.jpg
64665a47ced1a49ddec5736790fdb6c0
58c2f4cc859a6833c445d699e3a3511456c27357
34909 F20101109_AABZVD tiegs_t_Page_79.jp2
5b9ac0e840888de585c2b1fe8bdccf3e
2104b890d490d803587a988edcacd7ad4111820d
2153 F20101109_AABZQF tiegs_t_Page_24.txt
203e35094336be3de8a1dd98ae4f4c88
33b2466531cc217934711f00230e56ac6c8cdac6
121194 F20101109_AACAIV tiegs_t_Page_20.jp2
487177ff2db641f9b8c7039062d3a552
5bfbb5914d4fa5a9cae0771b3590794c2b91428b
F20101109_AACADX tiegs_t_Page_56.tif
0cc79dc4842a20a27df26020a38da84a
319e13d4d4a6d67afe2e56ae06052bcd22650726
26611 F20101109_AABZVE tiegs_t_Page_39.QC.jpg
dec213f0b24cdefe4e0dba69b9a03359
28fe2e4e394476ddec14d3b167e662c946ee4d90
6934 F20101109_AABZQG tiegs_t_Page_32thm.jpg
b3397f19b608fc7a642b0703e01f724a
67bb5a564356f4a0d6b66c95716014786de47349
111194 F20101109_AACAIW tiegs_t_Page_21.jp2
f7324b2d8ad42ceb3e251f16caff2df9
567e03733fdf47ae20a255c45b6f59ff433cdad1
2191 F20101109_AACABA tiegs_t_Page_01thm.jpg
ae573d9995c66a0503a865c81d56fb68
e9aba083e52a978e08a2d2a3038c736a905758a4
6857 F20101109_AACADY tiegs_t_Page_42thm.jpg
061600d89ffa33b9edf93032fd2c2a42
8cc864b97374c5dab3641ffc1fecfff4486d5f34
6134 F20101109_AABZVF tiegs_t_Page_10thm.jpg
89888f550dba2947907044894bbcf313
94c79e01f876a2866e0c2bf4c300f72de16c19f1
6926 F20101109_AABZQH tiegs_t_Page_29thm.jpg
8c3b2cadb005ee148bed4073f276b560
1fb4eb26b9fb8e5919895a4ce0dd51dc6e2a923a
F20101109_AACABB tiegs_t_Page_30.tif
01aaf33cbd5636f8ed2862cde442a3ff
4d22036cf3a4a21088f7558580f447f4810f56e1
F20101109_AACADZ tiegs_t_Page_67.tif
e7cf6bb9bc8967dd72a6b77ac29ba2da
944031e8cfd32493091fc347e413f17c29c98948
58144 F20101109_AABZVG tiegs_t_Page_37.pro
d842b0a843dddfa117b1be121d89102f
e3c769fa54fb45b82ad463b6e19e4a7231a18d22
115233 F20101109_AABZQI tiegs_t_Page_13.jp2
e389317e6183427f23d8ff685408ea94
90697de36c2637f13e1d36612aba188b65463292
120793 F20101109_AACAIX tiegs_t_Page_28.jp2
63ef197a8a324fb1fb1e48c12ff6eadf
a2512f6a708fb695f09f0706d803e879ac5a6114
117631 F20101109_AACABC tiegs_t_Page_27.jp2
945131895c5ce2bf8a429cbc4c31cec5
56d80b1cef083e0c2709fa4df37e22202d261fb2
25623 F20101109_AABZVH tiegs_t_Page_27.QC.jpg
6c6e8d4ae19a21c6d9d6132916973480
423a0d58697ab55eb90fe65878baaba7eeba78ae
313 F20101109_AABZQJ tiegs_t_Page_51.txt
05b8e11b8ca74407070782d5b22ff959
46ed3e818bdcbde2d0550b21e8b21e87df9e4d73
117475 F20101109_AACAIY tiegs_t_Page_35.jp2
f837b239cee087096163118cf803508f
a23467ac13bc0ba508f01b67dada563513ea850d
55382 F20101109_AACAGA tiegs_t_Page_74.jpg
6b7dd8883c993117f0982bbd7dc508cc
089bf88ca676a0ccc2b5bbf967a5fff812bb8ab7
F20101109_AACABD tiegs_t_Page_58.tif
aad31f9e997982bd8826c8e28f2bb0c2
f5b3893c73f8dcfd1632afd3bbe6b9773d9204bf
52556 F20101109_AABZVI tiegs_t_Page_53.pro
9f76d1cedbdcc8bc3d9823e7e6b9ca04
18080a9ffab7dae6f8da24b3d7fa234ca9a5f6f0
73713 F20101109_AABZQK tiegs_t_Page_05.jpg
fc1122b84f98e2399f10d1eca5e58af5
2aec80a6d013d386ab11ed877a4f329e6b1cfdb6
104902 F20101109_AACAIZ tiegs_t_Page_43.jp2
1731152427efce14193f1c6aeb1b6948
c7f2d5f0191c6b78b3a27f57e6fb0ca206aa1755
F20101109_AACAGB tiegs_t_Page_24.tif
0fc99ec442ea1f7f19667c11bb49b821
efd8eda4d83f8a481bab95c9d62a11959ee6f018
F20101109_AACABE tiegs_t_Page_38.txt
b8df634c9893870674299dabe473a008
c3699afe79a66ce660f71a215f9ffc6e781a0b71
F20101109_AABZVJ tiegs_t_Page_79.tif
f7ddc11b36a0a070cb0e61f7cb719d18
566ae3af0d5cc8995cbbec774396cf79ac93d7ca
F20101109_AABZQL tiegs_t_Page_34.tif
1278fb34c4c352e2333f185fd0f37973
961d21b33c609351115b5d614ef9a63e1c2a1c79
24274 F20101109_AACAGC tiegs_t_Page_81.QC.jpg
7d07ea6d9b42cfbb3465f06ca21e6649
1c728683f5d2c1e8eabe8bdcf308d37aa927a84b
106500 F20101109_AACABF tiegs_t_Page_17.jp2
e43e6ada3cbeedd8f0e9df38702202cd
174e430957cf2c8fd7424fa1e2af5250bdcce9e7
18921 F20101109_AABZQM tiegs_t_Page_56.QC.jpg
007c8427ff5fc14fa5d7b7ee9902f438
a03079604e30b8d4354911af6e7a41d8e8c32b5e
3855 F20101109_AACALA tiegs_t_Page_05.txt
28714eb5976fcc73b42c8c30ba0dd05b
56af7dc85291fb5e39e2a298362511533b1c796b
F20101109_AACAGD tiegs_t_Page_33.tif
4a16f602910f694ccb4399bd50d1c1fd
79141e37dea066a0b0507084346587037493b33c
F20101109_AACABG tiegs_t_Page_44.tif
6a9a2985313d2604f62d3c02c25ba17c
5e2552bf85d0ee609164f605735d483d81c8377e
2269 F20101109_AABZVK tiegs_t_Page_49.txt
6f94867c7e3526a5b24948ff272fb5c4
4e8404e5407374a1dc1b380490bace5588440262
F20101109_AABZQN tiegs_t_Page_52.tif
b8f43e52b4a99d4e400785d21e3f88bd
374723b999ee6a70d8b879d96c26590014ecac59
414 F20101109_AACALB tiegs_t_Page_08.txt
9010c5d40d506cd57c9b162c43c9f69e
eca67f84c893fa5e3346a3120ee1899e412d630b
2240 F20101109_AACAGE tiegs_t_Page_33.txt
7ccd66a345294904f7b567ee0e26bb61
b4dc0417b1247493d4c763ba3aa5b7d5d408f060
77438 F20101109_AACABH tiegs_t_Page_38.jpg
242355b89eda74c69be9de4577624dd1
85bb91a7b4ca14db86863e269bc88686be40ab8d
26549 F20101109_AABZVL tiegs_t_Page_82.QC.jpg
9703defc8bd7f30e8bc0931178256e0f
f069bec85fd8069983ef6d6d79ac8f0883cbc6c5
74518 F20101109_AABZQO tiegs_t_Page_14.jpg
1fe9284d535ee5dca16dd768f8a3d51f
d30aa3f139295a05d6a225de496ebf5b603312a4
1988 F20101109_AACALC tiegs_t_Page_10.txt
eb2f494f44cd64ff9f001060cd6201bb
acb25168cd0881a776e133c2d76b1c82312a9232
51484 F20101109_AACAGF tiegs_t_Page_15.pro
62350003b6fde2bf8b822083bf940496
486294e6ce9d0404c1f85c0a3eb65438c1a1bc2d
120123 F20101109_AACABI tiegs_t_Page_63.jp2
f979a4e8128b43bd58b6d2551a300dbd
a8a78a0fc45eb39476cc897c10823172dfadf369
19984 F20101109_AABZVM tiegs_t_Page_07.jpg
4ba857cab90a9596a5076fc64db7dcf3
eb2fe77d27ba161736b8d4dda1938048226b231d
F20101109_AABZQP tiegs_t_Page_47.tif
9719a1a5802d3c8b4d914f73a51fd49d
4565db7f9704d2d5a157340689be596e704df483
2020 F20101109_AACALD tiegs_t_Page_14.txt
e810ac2880e7bde23b9f759917507d25
5fd94e06885b431ec8858349693b767edb05ea72
F20101109_AACAGG tiegs_t_Page_46.tif
a28394f31d0f6a4c506664d994719978
d218665b2e7a3ff397f3d75be0502db51063b8af
F20101109_AABZVN tiegs_t_Page_41.tif
d85677a9229f52c1a935ebd2819caef3
c16063341981f0cedf1824ef81914a0dbe004d65
78241 F20101109_AABZQQ tiegs_t_Page_69.jpg
6a95d92dc360a89160b7eac7f0a626cb
aca9794a1a157c66df64561ce8548b6d12df1dbb
52075 F20101109_AACABJ tiegs_t_Page_78.pro
a63dcab46d1b501239d1cdfc49ef81c1
a09c1d7bb1b27b75ee8c2e5729b932fc974cdcb6
2058 F20101109_AACALE tiegs_t_Page_15.txt
18876e8867b66517ecd3459c854b20f5
2fd1499345049f54cd0710f379a0b3b460b88c77
F20101109_AACAGH tiegs_t_Page_11.tif
24a24a1f876fe060c9f81ad92f3f0ca7
550b0f2c64ae50285fd3c0ded3b5ebe40703e61c
25997 F20101109_AABZVO tiegs_t_Page_55.QC.jpg
2337f665c738cdd7bc17b2cdd1e29bda
7e5cd92867f05f9b75d764018890d0a442f1eb33
55888 F20101109_AABZQR tiegs_t_Page_81.pro
e89579737f432c077fa596ffcb2f4691
81689dfb7b7175fb80a2778ed2766ed0d338e4eb
3147 F20101109_AACABK tiegs_t_Page_02.QC.jpg
74bc9abe4814540d5a4f4ec48154e463
b6581e84556e86e3afb7ffec85b3d84a6a144968
1965 F20101109_AACALF tiegs_t_Page_19.txt
1e39eccbe227fc71336d5a360c7ce554
183e83ef5f3a722d23c7bbdaf59673d6bb115db9
22805 F20101109_AACAGI tiegs_t_Page_04.jpg
777900691571702d7de09c1f9edbb3a0
1598e2408e69e8cdf11da0c2eeebe7a5a01dffd0
31561 F20101109_AABZVP tiegs_t_Page_87.jpg
dc010bed0f5fa3e86a4104c99f6fdbc5
44356f845a6f59cddabc339f7214167949953ff6
24507 F20101109_AABZQS tiegs_t_Page_84.QC.jpg
f586bc46386db02fd9ebabe1c13f86e9
c53510df0242091ad1f38f8fb02fca819a0eebbb
6766 F20101109_AACABL tiegs_t_Page_13thm.jpg
f46837c1cd71f2ffef0215d9050e18ce
5dff8d8a3020a536bd30a36444a1f6bf9145ab27
2198 F20101109_AACALG tiegs_t_Page_28.txt
8cd991385e5220f0081ada25911a7b86
0350fb3519332dc289a61dfac61c7ffbf2adfede
99310 F20101109_AACAGJ tiegs_t_Page_50.jp2
cd23d34d616e8a62208fa848bc25ae9e
e3ea076e644f666090b7e99c87ebcf7579c53c10
F20101109_AABZVQ tiegs_t_Page_59.tif
9ded8f304c56618d8a970b6676d66867
fbf83c4e648cd75c1a0def7e0cddb722c275d027
116484 F20101109_AABZQT tiegs_t_Page_26.jp2
c877f65b40fccc7e7db2b046cfdc6322
87107571d88349763750790333070fb0ee916267
59368 F20101109_AACABM tiegs_t_Page_86.pro
5ffada063831bdd8522b80b3adfa20fc
1f69f92448b91ffb8c9b627d85945870075d7455
2069 F20101109_AACALH tiegs_t_Page_31.txt
6a42793d3a84bf9700e70f654c76ed55
ab0d4b58a83186c9fe647a0917b005b13a5459ba
6586 F20101109_AACAGK tiegs_t_Page_64thm.jpg
c2867fb8d62b89fd63b0a52daeb9e775
d1cfccff242a18a60485781217ef1a2abc12b4b4
85281 F20101109_AABZVR tiegs_t_Page_85.jpg
0b43bebc262a1de97224657754d5e585
885916e9f5f8f70910c6138b7790443f3c98a260
22226 F20101109_AABZQU tiegs_t_Page_19.QC.jpg
82b6f455aaa32e57d6296d627c8745ce
47151e0e18e3693b8d619198bc9c9d78a274c74d
24728 F20101109_AACABN tiegs_t_Page_71.QC.jpg
8612ca8482081691823beee86bb37306
faffcee5774647f7d48a350748e1160b0dffccea
F20101109_AACALI tiegs_t_Page_35.txt
e80fb0ca45f9532f9846defac17f3332
cc9fcb20be8e9afd3bee720f929377d5cc455a5d
56168 F20101109_AACAGL tiegs_t_Page_29.pro
635c436d16b79679ccca104b3f55f08c
1a7e78e64925621ec0e51ad5377691f60defc05e
32540 F20101109_AABZVS tiegs_t_Page_58.jpg
5532c5387c5269a2e793e9af10b4d943
ca9cba3f9543071206eacdc1bd2c4e31e5b364b6
38772 F20101109_AABZQV tiegs_t_Page_56.pro
b1a88ae8435dd250a09f263d410fead4
55235a1897ba86a18264a47167539d4ae3510afb
55521 F20101109_AACABO tiegs_t_Page_55.pro
5754f172530273c679d6e8c037187741
18c2efb5ba87878402da3784e5a95f9b91de7d2a
1949 F20101109_AACALJ tiegs_t_Page_43.txt
13f4815e74f802ad1ffaddf0e8559792
ea80a1775a75ef9e0bae04be0443cbeeaf224df0
26433 F20101109_AACAGM tiegs_t_Page_33.QC.jpg
7cb66c78039169eec11f990b880395d2
b0b163c93d0814b7069c1ab64adf7e4b3bf6ef64
F20101109_AABZVT tiegs_t_Page_68.txt
b016a53711d6cbef94d8a88f5d03be2f
3e921f4af989fa037b7f566508bc1b76ab6160d4
30448 F20101109_AABZQW tiegs_t_Page_76.pro
930e353dd1b749d3f3b196d82b0dd93f
548f40e3a3498aed06c8d5d7ace78c470938e604
F20101109_AACABP tiegs_t_Page_85.tif
6df435c3713dcd9ae2cce69ca04d6479
27f2091b26025a637b2c4247cb798d54538fc479
2071 F20101109_AACALK tiegs_t_Page_44.txt
61d0e321e959587f2b9a55897794f2bd
199de23a38dc7f6b7a61b63a913b8c48ed49508d
76092 F20101109_AACAGN tiegs_t_Page_36.jpg
4c7a3fa08101cd406471f74d142dbcc1
f351ec8996696205377bb9f4a5ddbd2bf38fb6a4
6941 F20101109_AABZVU tiegs_t_Page_23thm.jpg
70cae54f001ec7b704a2c56cca29d330
18a71abf9b829ed97a6cd8b29578af2e5c4249ef
115595 F20101109_AABZQX tiegs_t_Page_40.jp2
2ce1985b47abffa501619bd45913cfe1
f57942d5b5fb17b06284369821d219f3dd4a443a
2072 F20101109_AACALL tiegs_t_Page_46.txt
ca2a04126925c03f33fe891977edb64b
9de9e3c1dae1c3f99e207c06febdf66bc8d1ccbf
2133 F20101109_AACAGO tiegs_t_Page_66.txt
4b70975a1b7f512614e922b40636ee4d
3e2efdca1c61f67e87936e3b42e27aee081e9707
25207 F20101109_AABZVV tiegs_t_Page_67.QC.jpg
9880b7c7ecfbf472d625cc2f16bbb838
854aebbeda6dd2d724cfdd80f5d710533f49022f
6753 F20101109_AABZQY tiegs_t_Page_45thm.jpg
176cce2bb12f4545c81a28b3bcd20f7c
64fe6a7888fca816e147852ee867b2847212c0e1
78557 F20101109_AACABQ tiegs_t_Page_11.jpg
8743524981739adff9c42ecb62756d4d
d0c6e481d44c7f31b6f144361e858d9312360c6d
2085 F20101109_AACALM tiegs_t_Page_53.txt
66261b0e01bd69556216da714ffe0066
ba619e6b085844586b8236c81ef97a017a8699ac
24218 F20101109_AACAGP tiegs_t_Page_52.QC.jpg
03306a63a6bfc94f774e1a15af60c5b7
998c2463af062b5b018aa8746541c8a7aaedb904
2213 F20101109_AABZVW tiegs_t_Page_69.txt
daa471fd9b90f0f33cea213d992f19b3
40e7229e5287541c24d9f91ce9b73a3249694a9a
54663 F20101109_AABZQZ tiegs_t_Page_26.pro
6a5fdcde43cd6313486896f71998c589
4bd64abd3c28e77e2ca0f3dbd0fd7e6c779a8f1b
56658 F20101109_AACABR tiegs_t_Page_68.pro
6c7d4990f5e278e93591d82bd344c87b
9ef2cebfadd7aa72a884f7e80813b2f3db8c7330
2176 F20101109_AACALN tiegs_t_Page_55.txt
3a8f711e12e4a4f509f4551e96538d7a
065978199a47d9ad4ee8b08550af0c1a62bd50f1
26548 F20101109_AACAGQ tiegs_t_Page_48.QC.jpg
37e53ca3e87811d2614993ba0cfa9090
639dbb6ea9326842b519619907ef27dbbdcf0f8c
2047 F20101109_AABZVX tiegs_t_Page_64.txt
95d8d9735818fca00912254d784ddd46
3601822695890c2efa138084dac331fa10804806
116679 F20101109_AACABS tiegs_t_Page_12.jp2
74f5fe5d887b8428ea34cc4b8579ea92
59ff8aef1dbfd1337384899db7ee2d42e74deaaf
295 F20101109_AACALO tiegs_t_Page_60.txt
895423d8955901a5192ec163ef48c720
c4185004a03bca1e1cbd4baac21b5c6d587f6b06
22443 F20101109_AACAGR tiegs_t_Page_10.QC.jpg
e88c2bfdc6b5c1c9644d5e40e768d271
2afc9b56563d5d3595f9c106a81b7d1c5a3ffdc9
2148 F20101109_AABZVY tiegs_t_Page_71.txt
57c30b154f21e370361fe5f3550fcab5
c587ba4b6afdedccc7321d19d11c4765a818cff0
3052 F20101109_AACABT tiegs_t_Page_03.QC.jpg
8977e67182cc4010f832d360f840200f
b8145cbbe4223e67d21924e0d64c2f05e7bd729a
857 F20101109_AABZTA tiegs_t_Page_03.pro
f60125606237330af93318afd1780e77
aeae97eb0ea7e68c91929a6f158bed1f48ffe0ca
F20101109_AACALP tiegs_t_Page_65.txt
01164817bab78ee0536cbc73ea85b6cf
0469c1d0362917a30b202bf0f89b1727e8d27500
47804 F20101109_AACAGS tiegs_t_Page_10.pro
c60320cc1bfd1343ad6a1818ff1a6707
050695cf1002394f5ab650863215862ac5602777
2224 F20101109_AABZVZ tiegs_t_Page_11.txt
c592141966856534248c31f010084458
e7e96deb934217b99bdbaaa8148306d7785b6959
120215 F20101109_AACABU tiegs_t_Page_29.jp2
81c9447563786531e2aa13e08a430f03
ea033bcb4a8c83730ce900bc0bc9439ee4fe2f1c
2128 F20101109_AABZTB tiegs_t_Page_67.txt
f25a21fccf7fb2aedbfb0b616175ee93
014d9a48a67daa0ae4c3528d4611f813f6e2eef1
F20101109_AACALQ tiegs_t_Page_70.txt
7a78bcfb66efccb205c0712089fecd05
aafc625bd60e0d3ef42785f84133ff29414c8f2b
10005 F20101109_AACAGT tiegs_t_Page_87.QC.jpg
32f2639f133dacddddaeddfe878a5a52
eacd577b8a79734f44566fe9393116958c381c30
54259 F20101109_AACABV tiegs_t_Page_67.pro
ec5d07ac49ea9867235206a1766de74d
433c1388122d006c01bb0d6c5a2d9c18f4233a4f
2172 F20101109_AABZTC tiegs_t_Page_23.txt
b3081f698c4e413c901ceca57fc2b6ef
fe27d319d0f6fbca85234e4a20f1e83412f9a707
1469 F20101109_AACALR tiegs_t_Page_74.txt
589f2d25ee3926ed1b3c9ef104a8e33e
05ae08d05b5c9da9f094b7e26d0c38b3a204718c
F20101109_AACAGU tiegs_t_Page_29.txt
8fa7cef7f8a58f1b896371a9365aa77d
261c3ef9895597f92e8f84197f35bf33a966c492
25948 F20101109_AABZYA tiegs_t_Page_29.QC.jpg
125831f5fbd9a3d1239a70742f4526ae
d15cf4d73bf211765345bb67fe73037e96c8938f
6029 F20101109_AACABW tiegs_t_Page_60.QC.jpg
921772d031d39f58e79febedc1701f8d
d6b2f6300433707ac48a6fb47081a295fac0840a
6738 F20101109_AABZTD tiegs_t_Page_15thm.jpg
955bd98499bdb0f1b213435c82b48e09
251505cff1cb00c8c6ca8e0675e528723515f7dc
1659 F20101109_AACALS tiegs_t_Page_75.txt
678f71116f052bcdc2f03f8b1baa6167
70dda5280797d8c804a15612ae235523e370c843
73856 F20101109_AABZYB tiegs_t_Page_52.jpg
8f0e82178b7f932ad6d5524243b68b97
fbc3113f9d59be255eb4a82ea8fb24157de6839f
24747 F20101109_AACABX tiegs_t_Page_13.QC.jpg
726c90674a4c1a5a7cb674de797c8bf5
776b7ebc2c08320fa83ff4fc12541b396d83560f
83097 F20101109_AABZTE tiegs_t_Page_83.jpg
4a392f24b6da8009a9cd4ad5aeed9508
a104aa5644826a43602ccbd7636581d900bb52f6
2353 F20101109_AACALT tiegs_t_Page_80.txt
0df2a13e1d3cd338dfb82b562a615121
4922f0c31b71582397a55d33977dd954ac440da9
6795 F20101109_AACAGV tiegs_t_Page_34thm.jpg
8db52aaf1a47ce402b056cddadc290dc
bf93c19ab87c4cda43085fcafc49ae3c65625ad6
113781 F20101109_AABZYC tiegs_t_Page_45.jp2
dd078b2a1e80bb39d862a3c101cb687e
19abe569365cee84bc7d18f43128035dd32bdf3c
108110 F20101109_AACABY tiegs_t_Page_44.jp2
e17b1e75cc50fc84aba1defd7b8ef44d
fe964f0c1d7550c9f718eb508f4dc83568f34d6e
60795 F20101109_AABZTF tiegs_t_Page_83.pro
91c4ddf4fe40c6e18f133745fd7a824d
77d5a9709fdb3a171d0e4ec34727755815f01627
2470 F20101109_AACALU tiegs_t_Page_84.txt
402b4ac9aed5ee1a298f806ff5b618e0
8375ea8568b92e85bc5cf06d74a37e4769584bd5
122056 F20101109_AACAGW tiegs_t_Page_68.jp2
e4d4adc7c51df94b6f9e835ab0a27764
cb7973788dccb048aae8664254014433634a3632
F20101109_AABZYD tiegs_t_Page_86.tif
b1a2852f3248e670f84e28b793581fb3
d483336d0e075ac756ef1d46426f36d002e61617
24825 F20101109_AACABZ tiegs_t_Page_83.QC.jpg
9c93f2a2f8adab808f7eab4c3565385d
ef5882c3d76b8e47fc269bb62c2f77bb9bf5589d
22758 F20101109_AABZTG tiegs_t_Page_17.QC.jpg
01fd3dfad750cc7a0bcf752eeea5b44c
bdad05ade9ef4be00504df601de4424cec6e2af4
2532 F20101109_AACALV tiegs_t_Page_85.txt
79d9e33a944d2eeda9fcf7161ac482fa
691f9476cd548f62b4d19a9494ad619d13756a92
46467 F20101109_AACAGX tiegs_t_Page_76.jpg
002e1618c322eabef8bed666a7998ea6
dc422a1391d9c6362c33017d3572c55cafd5dffc
132446 F20101109_AABZYE tiegs_t_Page_60.jp2
cd61c6f8dce9928f69caa0274366128b
160ee2fb3beab6ae46e4b1e848ea82bc9c3eec0c
69394 F20101109_AABZTH tiegs_t_Page_19.jpg
0d535c617baaa5f50a3d4ecb1ab96110
b0536879dde2b1281fe3f485b0df2d9fb5caf036
709 F20101109_AACALW tiegs_t_Page_87.txt
6212767bf7232adc272f30229759c378
75e69e2c4deba656e7d2bbad72394b07a7fa70b0
926 F20101109_AACAGY tiegs_t_Page_58.txt
8111fb02938b0170d38967c20a73ccf0
581110a036e048b4a434df3b38269f4811ad750b
1923 F20101109_AACAEA tiegs_t_Page_08thm.jpg
76c149002fff9f27b48023ac62478303
ac71a3420577cfaf5a904de808900a4c9125c090
22695 F20101109_AABZYF tiegs_t_Page_43.QC.jpg
47e057af71f4966b05da0efd81a63e30
0b115b7b0415af32ed0d19740628b7cf73ffd2cc
6676 F20101109_AACALX tiegs_t_Page_01.QC.jpg
84c800f893dce9eaeda9e9dee49470c2
f0b520d001d9add2dac69ec257882edf17e628fb
F20101109_AACAGZ tiegs_t_Page_07.tif
602f8dae092b4fd221278c23d3060bb6
98f3b8f9192602b52b6e5261d4a018e377a192ed
F20101109_AACAEB tiegs_t_Page_70.tif
30920112e034d1477fd105159c891b1e
5bf2a45bd4c7e9f4cdf80b3cf79a4dd8e8024f4f
25863 F20101109_AABZYG tiegs_t_Page_65.QC.jpg
b1a6a843b7d7f612f261837fd2f5f7a2
83dc916836f74a4bf21947330365c76036c7c951
23128 F20101109_AABZTI tiegs_t_Page_44.QC.jpg
a42b53f00b4021034763276a86851780
ba6d5464f156b6760438a6889995c7c9d7a02f38
7246 F20101109_AACALY tiegs_t_Page_04.QC.jpg
5aecade708b47780fd99c0a7966e687a
5f82989c1d0cf24f506d987db6a879adef515ff9
F20101109_AACAEC tiegs_t_Page_69.pro
025e0ad715217cadf8ef2d810bcdce66
d24963455033c1c56554ef97ca7ba47b3eacd7b0
6702 F20101109_AABZYH tiegs_t_Page_38thm.jpg
f18fb0e85e4f82298cbcb9b0a2b1fc31
fc04fe19e054cea63156d3dc19ecaad8c9a67dc5
55739 F20101109_AABZTJ tiegs_t_Page_62.pro
ed5c9fcb524e7bd1d800fce760798c56
aeb56164af0db65480e3c301c1e458470d1ec0ef
2299 F20101109_AACALZ tiegs_t_Page_04thm.jpg
689c91b4213321437a7e23ec10d49676
c422072ebf8bc7171639698810d809c24621b1bc
123421 F20101109_AACAJA tiegs_t_Page_49.jp2
b01d3a0de2d5d078bc87d9a87cffe7c4
84573bb2017217990c4a7214f4dc5b7753a5f696
61448 F20101109_AACAED tiegs_t_Page_06.pro
1ae22a6d2351e4b620cda90bee485792
037f572f86193e87893c8e7beda173afebb0750f
108002 F20101109_AABZYI tiegs_t_Page_64.jp2
995b5908830062b510777d8698cadf3f
3533f32408be7c3297b2d4ce119098e47b6599ea
24973 F20101109_AABZTK tiegs_t_Page_66.QC.jpg
4d1769b0b73bb4915d673acb24b1ce69
0a7db01578baf822f51294507377e2a9f7288d92
119640 F20101109_AACAJB tiegs_t_Page_54.jp2
353b55788cb4ed7bc658a2e97e7d860d
7b89bba87bdaf9ccc4cc7257a93c94ad85e2ed69
F20101109_AACAEE tiegs_t_Page_81.txt
4e30a3d36c7e9aa4edd49bc7a464d473
74746009e3d7a931a809c5a29216df5ecf396ea7
111635 F20101109_AABZYJ tiegs_t_Page_53.jp2
f8e5eb0322997376272a34914800ec06
ea52c75507bd1236dac718d00dd67303191e7fdc
2257 F20101109_AABZTL tiegs_t_Page_20.txt
dc1f92f30581e555c9e8c6541bf8c49e
b075554a35a9db9c653f342e5d597d46b711fccd
118427 F20101109_AACAJC tiegs_t_Page_55.jp2
51829b103ab9aacddcc1c0c27171a9c8
855f66e8b48f8ca5657ea199b720d442ca256eea
457 F20101109_AABZYK tiegs_t_Page_07.txt
c48eac7b926650d939588c474efeb043
9b45179e71964ff451f406f5950914c37816780d
77236 F20101109_AABZTM tiegs_t_Page_42.jpg
af257ad48d6893a4aa7d8df9655a38db
bb60bd81c99585418620195043c030943806d745
39342 F20101109_AACAEF tiegs_t_Page_09.pro
1c193e0f0a13618c230ba19234e35836
b71ff2432207d30ac94b78391283f88c02e00a5d
104131 F20101109_AACAJD tiegs_t_Page_61.jp2
7ee93fcd613ed1d728fea21d2e8d0438
be5dbec95372928d6a6161156290c761e40b4789
56751 F20101109_AABZYL tiegs_t_Page_56.jpg
d9ad0585601fbf3825148f76aaf4b0df
3d9ec9a0e402a7b63f4d741203ff3bc084188985
75547 F20101109_AABZTN tiegs_t_Page_70.jpg
2fb6074717f2e739262acd40e652436a
068c6eec361f446a51a2112de5738b4c9461fbac
2122 F20101109_AACAEG tiegs_t_Page_47.txt
0d59e810ad537c6dd24b0c111d44535e
37ffd4ccd763117a263b14fa322d41445336fbcf
119871 F20101109_AACAJE tiegs_t_Page_62.jp2
0d36817c48c53eb4ba9eb20f958bc476
7bf3f23b299ad57e0696f5621990c8ce706212ca
14087 F20101109_AABZYM tiegs_t_Page_59.pro
85f13acc876d32daaec423d6f2c6c9df
1f8c1b4fd88cb785196a7a4562de94f44c800974
51594 F20101109_AABZTO tiegs_t_Page_21.pro
607103721a678c00e6ef49cd76fb9554
4c4b960089bf5203d2c29480ff990c31bb8fa1e4
2430 F20101109_AACAEH tiegs_t_Page_86.txt
e6538f013d6a8a1bdfe9826c619835df
479974cfe17ad8c8f594ec9e8def9f7efe5c0f11
120142 F20101109_AACAJF tiegs_t_Page_65.jp2
d75be1657c45c57b91ce091edd9f6fb9
682f30f694ad199df27c4638a35ab3fad4006ab6
81485 F20101109_AABZTP tiegs_t_Page_86.jpg
4f3d01f2761f5b5c51d2db79f0610f4c
02e48ff029bf313ac97d154bfcd9b5bc616d9ff6
91 F20101109_AACAEI tiegs_t_Page_03.txt
5f2350ae4f50257eed022c232d64bf8c
e1c91a5327a47797bb4bb7b4e798de0f09479fd6
116183 F20101109_AACAJG tiegs_t_Page_67.jp2
adfe4d04f3e2ed6f500d06cba41fe026
024ab94248a22a21e08ab84278b6d7d6c05592a8
54251 F20101109_AABZYN tiegs_t_Page_27.pro
dc4aa554d1c0ff4b44a2eecfaf53215e
bf23a5f3284dac34a669b73d5d362bf0194995bf
77146 F20101109_AABZTQ tiegs_t_Page_66.jpg
27109b636f99e0995822d2eabd4da709
e3a35e787722e18432d2c9370f77a3e247a3ad1f
2092 F20101109_AACAEJ tiegs_t_Page_45.txt
9c9c1de4d0a11999317b3167844ebc4d
2d4f7c9791a328501ed177d876f01b7acb9e4389
40317 F20101109_AACAJH tiegs_t_Page_87.jp2
ca12fad75947242d5f5c6a63efc6a043
a94a12324a8967a7ad956e229fb1ce2362a0da0d
5437 F20101109_AABZYO tiegs_t_Page_56thm.jpg
d10272d43459ec1aa200a810fe2cd143
a9032b1ac23404efa1dfc6544b2387bcdbf021f3
1362 F20101109_AABZTR tiegs_t_Page_02thm.jpg
6e27458a31c1a47debe7d0a547df9f96
10477fd271ed7726157810fe8e165858e7aae20e
2070 F20101109_AACAEK tiegs_t_Page_21.txt
9a0d5921405422e0972dd6eab8c6dfeb
a0694cef0c490e47a2638ea4aa6fc63aff8ec70e
F20101109_AACAJI tiegs_t_Page_06.tif
a46b480f93861ce4724db372b58956eb
a7d7b3310d1cc1bd1d817417276152b2fc110192
52639 F20101109_AABZYP tiegs_t_Page_31.pro
a2f430cd3ebd00fe99e14dacddf8e1e9
3f5ed0bbfb664d99bf1bf15f55f4827c12bbe769
12868 F20101109_AABZTS tiegs_t_Page_77.jp2
726a4890bf3dc6327e60b11fcc545d9c
22eaf4b52ca8712471f452852600392cae555c56
25926 F20101109_AACAEL tiegs_t_Page_24.QC.jpg
e46ae3844c41b95bfe2d000549bd2909
dc84de88f2e10cf0d00a2c784a8e519f29bf7141
F20101109_AACAJJ tiegs_t_Page_10.tif
0355d69289a1dbed6dac2e38a22bdbfa
10d812292099ac977bf782c33f08cbbdd54290cc
26796 F20101109_AABZYQ tiegs_t_Page_49.QC.jpg
9f7189d84108c337b4966eaa1b81dd7d
3e65893beaa2d236782d12ac22c9ba34cc9a6a82
76648 F20101109_AABZTT tiegs_t_Page_12.jpg
190177f49d24b5c0afde62211b9fe26b
67190edc125cedd58dc31c6d5018cf94859562a2
50202 F20101109_AACAEM tiegs_t_Page_16.pro
85e9932b0df7fa7f111f3773b35df8db
8ea3f7e83caa216340f51e577eac8c202b89373f
F20101109_AACAJK tiegs_t_Page_13.tif
ed5184f9602b124fbe520c2a4b3cd929
819c9e910194411e75fdd3a7c27b2f88a03a7a54
57221 F20101109_AABZYR tiegs_t_Page_25.pro
8973ab2b4d0c1718cea9a5af2f37a881
e5e60cafd7429ec133ef5007bbf0396b23430f6d
52548 F20101109_AABZTU tiegs_t_Page_46.pro
2ebf7084dabfec3528711b0abab2af44
a32781e702e67a0ddc27751ff096f7afaf4c8851
5094 F20101109_AACAEN tiegs_t_Page_74thm.jpg
be5161be32196839701c2832e9c9b8c2
6d018da831a1979aacd9d1a7659f15b5a0955c7b
F20101109_AACAJL tiegs_t_Page_20.tif
4fc3dc95cadf001ba1205ee7c6fc48fd
cc8b1268d9bdd3713fc3d85e6d30b17b730d6b9e
F20101109_AABZYS tiegs_t_Page_29.tif
c3f03a191fb3e5a9baf64c62fb53f5a6
2280d1350a31a2791f33b92c69640fd40940aa4b
F20101109_AABZTV tiegs_t_Page_26.tif
dc0d24357c5d40afe9250396dea9731e
b4df54ef387d8e8143f03752afe17b747fa4153b
2147 F20101109_AACAEO tiegs_t_Page_26.txt
3d404d52a15f4a3fc8dada60e91f8b50
e264ef37e8e6a15b8f1bedd9e7a4eb7a9f9afa8c
F20101109_AACAJM tiegs_t_Page_23.tif
5ad2010bbfbc34fe8f02ba9aa3fe42d2
bdec619a1c37a5b9079d429f9cc0e7fb4ebd19c7
6858 F20101109_AABZYT tiegs_t_Page_11thm.jpg
ec915b3f269983d311752320c2ec0312
a71ac8786ea2b78ce931c3b759b70570136e171d
76766 F20101109_AABZTW tiegs_t_Page_13.jpg
b90e42542c9e1b63247977cea3fa7b13
7eba63711375dd65be8ec35ef4d6c0e716469e4f
112458 F20101109_AACAEP tiegs_t_Page_41.jp2
ff0f3de2e3b0d4624fe7c883d91dd928
f1a39f92a3a62a14b04b6f27e568d461cc61d234
F20101109_AACAJN tiegs_t_Page_25.tif
57668f9926d8356b42ca4a3d52285e6a
c9a52f1d53fbdedcd0b48516264d9417e8eafce7
9428 F20101109_AABZYU tiegs_t_Page_08.pro
5544889feeccd4dfbafd3530897fa46e
1c4bdb7c4e69626219a6cd769e87d3e580467923
7157 F20101109_AABZTX tiegs_t_Page_54thm.jpg
5cf2d0dc7ce59fad03ab2cd8597ded85
89058e1974f122e1331acf223448fb4f007fde20
6538 F20101109_AACAEQ tiegs_t_Page_16thm.jpg
0c9ba24be63b0c0179b978131f4dedb6
f5ab9567c77a2118e360f4f61c8def4341bd6cb9
F20101109_AACAJO tiegs_t_Page_32.tif
f73df74d0f37c9d70b47b4776f3fb739
4c78593ef06b1f2ece650e56ae8b14b7cb54562d
16727 F20101109_AABZYV tiegs_t_Page_51.jp2
dfe81e5036adad9c40ad542494842cba
a1d2fcd711f3f308f9f025c86ec3576493be8400
26138 F20101109_AABZRA tiegs_t_Page_62.QC.jpg
604904a6f967b93348daa7c1e9aa183c
525385ac8b628412f007128373d4fc3d27271465
71093 F20101109_AABZTY tiegs_t_Page_61.jpg
c2316baacd3b57f2322ae4cc936399c0
5286a30030cffbc7c2e9f4f7ff72e932ad37ee33
6829 F20101109_AACAER tiegs_t_Page_67thm.jpg
0bd7a96a8f72c7123bfa5a80b9bf0bc2
6e29bdc2515086785fbf5eabff7e50614d5a52f9
F20101109_AACAJP tiegs_t_Page_40.tif
e22f4a713049af5dbf978a3b8cf8ed03
b46e0dd67ee89131335792116664d63ad4df10ad
F20101109_AABZYW tiegs_t_Page_12.tif
62452c98a1507746d29debaa9149ac7c
e63856f740b6c22322fe75dfa3963bbe17f29a25
124031 F20101109_AABZRB tiegs_t_Page_30.jp2
b6083b3502a29b640879127824c99eaf
9bf5ce3a729220e2010f0193320a159283567ed5
F20101109_AABZTZ tiegs_t_Page_61.txt
1f565409cf5adf6f77d6ddf6e15e0516
f3185468ae8c04e696778a28781ed965d2a86fed
6918 F20101109_AACAES tiegs_t_Page_63thm.jpg
ec928852ddb3151ee39f8816abbd3cd1
fadf5f35e3afca4407f2dbe659ac74027e00791e
F20101109_AACAJQ tiegs_t_Page_42.tif
bf8127c5a7dfe3332032f75fb821bf4b
47f3d1978f26977b9ee9197312e57be9bb31da70
123135 F20101109_AABZYX tiegs_t_Page_37.jp2
25d84628cae3c8a44d71c570569c8044
8d0267d91428630e8108e795ff8b1cefdaebc7ab
26188 F20101109_AABZRC tiegs_t_Page_23.QC.jpg
dad5aa0b6affdb30704f3aa3081145c7
de3c9f326128714ce6c7846997ea9664223cfed3
F20101109_AACAJR tiegs_t_Page_43.tif
b1ce0ce0b98a98849f9ed05f72990082
d3b994636b5839e99c2d04b506a5f855b1fa1e66
F20101109_AABZYY tiegs_t_Page_73.tif
0e1a4c8ee26bd75f854b646e9afc8ad2
5e3acb4f9c4cab00e8dc51a3e36d62e3bc730b4c
1051965 F20101109_AABZRD tiegs_t_Page_06.jp2
ca89946e2514ee2de64bc5f1d6e65b52
de20a810d53ea3e40e4364be1fe65d0006996d43
18550 F20101109_AACAET tiegs_t_Page_08.jpg
0f5ec95fc63484d45b80011c994012a5
06dffa3d9525e1ca8f178342fa9135e712023c24
6797 F20101109_AABZWA tiegs_t_Page_41thm.jpg
9711305142f5fb4c05ec10ae69885563
9e3b155a870d29b37113f17985a002da148ed441
F20101109_AACAJS tiegs_t_Page_54.tif
1539c7d5cb5bf01f3c8f3bdef2cb45f9
6688ccab979a9841ee66d088d913e4eda7aa4498
75346 F20101109_AABZYZ tiegs_t_Page_46.jpg
2859f0dfa7e54a5ec73db65bc10d9e8d
eb5a1ae2b8094ca251417e789aa6a5d4fbeadfdc
5590 F20101109_AABZRE tiegs_t_Page_75thm.jpg
4abdf1de171429914587f77452b7ac79
9a3d23fc3276d1325202005c9f033f66fccc1961
F20101109_AACAEU tiegs_t_Page_49.tif
ca8dd9fb42a59d7d74ae7cb24d4be7a6
94aa15e0ee9eedbc9991d57f77c9eedfe8c13111
57160 F20101109_AABZWB tiegs_t_Page_65.pro
503f89713a232ba5703781996d1f773e
ce0409050616e3cfdaf349fb6358c263a555cb90
F20101109_AACAJT tiegs_t_Page_60.tif
72a7e347622c63793101fa63946a4326
335a365baae27672d2c49db1aaadf8309738d833
22409 F20101109_AABZRF tiegs_t_Page_50.QC.jpg
f1d7ceb7710585935c658e5fd3b05a84
9d5ff2259f0be519ec050b567d4a7079924b8760
73733 F20101109_AACAEV tiegs_t_Page_45.jpg
a33f140b52bfdcff3e681005bb932bd3
68ed4ebfcff23b503970a6af9ea2c123c401440a
80299 F20101109_AABZWC tiegs_t_Page_68.jpg
5b35219c13f97358d4d2cc9f6e504330
1d641899ed173c886c91efc29385d7bfabf1bdbf
F20101109_AACAJU tiegs_t_Page_63.tif
62f09458640da44323d3e195976792b2
07a031941323a6e722d5c91af47a1be23cfecea3
6497 F20101109_AACAEW tiegs_t_Page_61thm.jpg
bee3bdfa287721b1ceaef9b505c180b8
1355e287794c6880aad6954114b7aaa6d1523104
25230 F20101109_AABZWD tiegs_t_Page_72.QC.jpg
7ab097e46ca5d3e1f0e62b83d3e53f83
1c3115b17aabed2f45125cf0a7f63d2d5ad765be
F20101109_AACAJV tiegs_t_Page_65.tif
97789eb4930a81a915496374e847f884
015776f6a963a3a093e76bdba118184e14940886
25346 F20101109_AABZRG tiegs_t_Page_42.QC.jpg
4ee6da2a6afe6d3e541f7a3705490561
c696a9d48f6372ca7ffeb3b5317b7154d42f0eee
76536 F20101109_AACAEX tiegs_t_Page_40.jpg
a6ee6c7e5072278c25c2b4a2d1e8c553
2fd68e48ef4ab2cd99011a2be3abdac9ff564d63
3383 F20101109_AABZWE tiegs_t_Page_58thm.jpg
b19a5647f31a6217b62e2547d6761725
0d4f413086ae2312586741552e45e5161ed50991
F20101109_AACAJW tiegs_t_Page_69.tif
d2ed351e07936890cc2f844e88982ce5
dd4014a7258895075d40726066caa94349479e4d
48720 F20101109_AABZRH tiegs_t_Page_61.pro
71f0161456d5ce25da3a8790349048cc
f12edc7eaaaf3b8e206fcc174a1284f9f16a7d5b
57674 F20101109_AACACA tiegs_t_Page_80.pro
a61c52abd535411024b75cfc158c3353
d8b881584b3c1f4bad5ef309b79b9d2e162cc4e9
16889 F20101109_AACAEY tiegs_t_Page_87.pro
851cd89d7dcef196a6d6ee86f85d204a
d28af1fc9914ea83da30ac507feefd74a9848072
54941 F20101109_AABZWF tiegs_t_Page_24.pro
012ae685aa50a2e970f7a33696d00ef6
e97b59101ba8c3025076b1b7da9a25d06366dda1
F20101109_AACAJX tiegs_t_Page_75.tif
27fef56306ed8648eeb59d84e27b408e
56a27470041f105857daa165064712aeeaad84a0
F20101109_AABZRI tiegs_t_Page_12.pro
4dd3453ab855eeab71799042ba0b5344
b5facba2247f72b91b9101d38f444de496964275
7049 F20101109_AACACB tiegs_t_Page_25thm.jpg
aefaa092d9a383f5ac587c3502d6063b
8877e12ea20768774abf131ffdd3ea568045b968
F20101109_AACAEZ tiegs_t_Page_87.tif
2cb80a993577a665ae7997715c698c81
40f8f1b2a5dd085c5f4da624b7dc5cfd33877183
2115 F20101109_AABZWG tiegs_t_Page_72.txt
70ac16778ac639a7ae5e73f22daf51f7
b45b15c022cb7e62c896e670e00b3d813ed236ff
116186 F20101109_AABZRJ tiegs_t_Page_72.jp2
67c361576d4517449ac7817fb7dccbaa
14215ade5222d9d0bdc06e52a2021669587c3da6
1054428 F20101109_AACACC tiegs_t_Page_57.tif
23c2551278035ffe32b1a5a8a5507230
67e169991a472eb3d95e35a9c708966c768a3a77
24034 F20101109_AABZWH tiegs_t_Page_21.QC.jpg
37ff6e4229d897aa324bdb683c89b8e1
767faf6e0704949dfc2cbbb92a665f1583e58440
F20101109_AACAJY tiegs_t_Page_81.tif
f2ba4e8cdff4720895f7edae5504c71e
195c7d6523787e9dd6691c8f778e2ad86bb43747
53908 F20101109_AACAHA tiegs_t_Page_36.pro
8fa116053af2bb666e581f27aa930dd7
ef2cc8a21754320fb861854fb4801b9f43c63617
73410 F20101109_AABZRK tiegs_t_Page_64.jpg
21a5cacf4e9eb93d0a48d734803d71cc
37a8dcc63013646b6a97a7ea4e171673a96a0e36
3301 F20101109_AACACD tiegs_t_Page_18thm.jpg
1188be2cdaa21647c9d832501de2739d
3ed1252773da22967ffbcf1566dea8c703bd8a03
26247 F20101109_AABZWI tiegs_t_Page_68.QC.jpg
c03751cbff50b592be6926361ee71a52
5f30536ebcfbaa795cf5d0a9eee0ed282894487c
F20101109_AACAJZ tiegs_t_Page_82.tif
8a4e4255bd20ef5ce4bf36d1ae053a5f
f66cb0c5b9f20d92a7826bf680f22f4bb7562aac
6910 F20101109_AACAHB tiegs_t_Page_35thm.jpg
c2d6589b72d7481c88ff3173e2c51871
eaaa067e39e5ee96b0c20aceffee4b14c7b0b409
24644 F20101109_AABZRL tiegs_t_Page_41.QC.jpg
ae4a1a232d3170fd535093eacae4d5a5
1acf68c223fd2fdb5c33995c93435ae32d36f2f9
73941 F20101109_AACACE tiegs_t_Page_31.jpg
1aaf63950710fdb35abd4e551b5ba4b2
1dc1cb04fd9ff98ac42cc94b3f7c835e8dc8cd0f
2083 F20101109_AABZWJ tiegs_t_Page_13.txt
516ccb364110e2d674191a4a4aad7ea8
91c50ac4d74895dc867a9b332d64b4ab306b5e38
23074 F20101109_AACAHC tiegs_t_Page_61.QC.jpg
94caead4a2b952cea19c290361b2d3f3
285a2037d32fcddcc7a5a80a556ebb09122484ab
125508 F20101109_AABZRM tiegs_t_Page_86.jp2
adcbf86b7423338c6cbc13f22306ef02
537d6a3d681bb7e637788c74c756f5f0968bf8c5
F20101109_AACACF tiegs_t_Page_05.tif
8b8271ede84aee9a23e7803afd4a0e5b
7756fed3ecf13987113bbfc5e8df5960e55945fd
6748 F20101109_AABZWK tiegs_t_Page_53thm.jpg
a6f69c6dbacd5f14c51f3959544d4267
98c896f9bb55bc8f4ec708ef3c839b970aa0bf9a
12957 F20101109_AACAMA tiegs_t_Page_06.QC.jpg
325f1b737e4ecf448fec69422312134c
36da18f4ec014661ba72bf19347ea676b954a962
24849 F20101109_AACAHD tiegs_t_Page_26.QC.jpg
c77494ab86dc2a31c3b8082cfc142a4d
a1c654548e49ce75cfb7725de3f873e473597eed
115916 F20101109_AABZRN tiegs_t_Page_36.jp2
25fb538e0ac0c19b40271507a080b7c1
ced171b8191a13aea5dd98c43afadfd6a3a70865
2283 F20101109_AACACG tiegs_t_Page_30.txt
75add21ef4786b745347f83649b19145
a7a33fa81fab08af4a2ecbea3642a825d577c0d2
3711 F20101109_AACAMB tiegs_t_Page_06thm.jpg
88123687b8830c8905118088434a953d
871f87d517708f0832c48fa22569bf2a44273278
7126 F20101109_AACAHE tiegs_t_Page_49thm.jpg
2fe57e1767f89ec8b7e52a4deef3e4f4
61ae983f783550bd2728d850d7cabcdef75b48d3
121274 F20101109_AABZRO tiegs_t_Page_32.jp2
577605720299869a87f332065c110a3f
02414cadf4b63109b1d5d611b30ede705c93c774
506273 F20101109_AACACH tiegs_t_Page_59.jp2
68fd6b048ef55384cc89e0101cd02521
0e626ca9a1f370f33171c45b8258176052d23dbb
F20101109_AABZWL tiegs_t_Page_51.tif
5a56fea7d5b0e5d4eb3d4a725397c011
da5bd3e3dd09546ff618a799ad8825d30d382f2c
F20101109_AACAMC tiegs_t_Page_07thm.jpg
55c4f8555a428bbe01ad476ea613c40b
5c3c29ffc01c09cc682cdae273ae452a64e0bbd4
F20101109_AACAHF tiegs_t_Page_50.tif
785b4ba4459162219ed098b04bcf520e
941388fe09577e2245d8dbd4c48be150ec7552b1
755 F20101109_AABZRP tiegs_t_Page_02.pro
f371c02a4d49ce1d9b6a285904e43ad9
2f6d77c28b428447a40f00ab930c1e9ee5194c63
109262 F20101109_AACACI tiegs_t_Page_52.jp2
1d00282b8858be65462387c714262372
5531001ec7eb65931d3aef69617c3599d5b85fb4
6892 F20101109_AABZWM tiegs_t_Page_12thm.jpg
7d29445a08c63dc570678c30e35e6598
9c9f406ffaa5f00e976f56284e47ca08c6821f5f
19082 F20101109_AACAMD tiegs_t_Page_09.QC.jpg
1e4043dca7b673ba3e835b48b07792e9
401b6bf66f8dc903f28a64bf74f0d2e8a023a199
24501 F20101109_AACAHG tiegs_t_Page_80.QC.jpg
345b0a98776313600ccd1f89886192d0
91094c4f03f8306591942332b2c02105f610683e
61750 F20101109_AACACJ tiegs_t_Page_85.pro
420f2a9781b18b80d2f2ea95c93732eb
d6e8e355003067ad6ec580421bcb337276f932a4
7056 F20101109_AABZWN tiegs_t_Page_83thm.jpg
ef5149c0c546e65a04ac93b44fe2d01f
7a90aceda04fd19f8a266621fe632e4e0b0b1164
7120 F20101109_AABZRQ tiegs_t_Page_28thm.jpg
e9031ac0bb58dd0de969f099aa0f1deb
8da1b90034bf27d2e12efc169732d0ce15965e5e







DESIRED LOVING BEHAVIORS ACROSS THE LIFE SPAN


By

TOM J TIEGS

















A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2008






























2008 Tom J Tiegs



































To my love bug, Sarah.









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank my wife, Sarah for everything that she does for me. I would also like to thank my

friends and family for their support. I owe gratitude to my advisor and committee members Drs.

Heesacker, Bluck, Perez, and Sheehan. I also want to thank John Graham of Penn State

University for his timely advice on using imputation methods for missing data. Thanks to HP as

well.









TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A CK N O W LED G M EN T S .................................................................. ........... .............. .....

L IS T O F T A B L E S .............. .... ............. ............................................ ............... 7

LIST OF FIGURES .............. ....... ...........................................8

A B S T R A C T ......... ........................ .................. ......................................... .. 9

CHAPTER

1 IN TR O D U CTIO N ............... .............................. ..................... ........ .. 10

Desired Loving Behaviors Across The Life Span ...........................................................10
B a ck g ro u n d .............................................................. .... ............................................ 1 1
The C current Project ...................................................................................................... .......15
Gender .......................................15
A g e ............................................................................1 6
R relationship L length ............................................................. ................ .. ....... 17
C h ild re n ................... ......................................................... ................ 1 7
H ypotheses Sum m ary ............................................................................ ...... ....... 17

2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .......................................................... ..............19

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria in the Current Review ...................................................20
Perspectives on L ove ............ ................... ............................ .......... .... .............. 21
Love as a Single Factor with Various Components ................................................22
Multifactor Approaches and Other Conceptualizations of Love...................................37
Critical Review of the Literature .............. ................................ ................................... 42
S u m m ary .............. ...... ........... ........................................................................... 4 3

3 M E T H O D S .........................................................................44

P h a se 1 .............................................................................................................. ...... 4 4
P articip an ts ................................................................4 4
M measures ........... .... ......... ..... ....................... ......... 45
P ro c ed u re ......... ...... ......... ....................................... ...........................4 5
Phase 2 ........... ......... ......... ....................................45
P articip an ts ................................................................4 5
M measures ........... .... ......... ..... ....................... ......... 47
P ro c ed u re ......... ...... ......... ....................................... ...........................4 7
D ata A n a ly sis .............................................................................................................. 5 0
H hypothesis T testing ................................................................50

4 R E SU L T S .............. ... ................................................................52









P h a se 1 ............................................................................5 2
P h a se 2 ................ ........................................................................................5 2
Planned M missing D ata A nalysis................................................ ........................... 52
F a cto r A n a ly sis ................................................................................................5 2
C ro n b ach 's a ...............................................................5 3
Hypothesis Testing .................... .................... ......... .......53
A ncillary A analyses ........................ .. ........................ .. .... ........ ........ 55

5 D IS C U S S IO N ................................................................................................................... 6 1

Phase 1 Love is Sim ple, not Easy, but Sim ple ........................................ .....................61
P h a se 2 ................... ....................................................................................6 1
Factor A analysis of the D LB S-2 ......... ................. ................... .............................. 61
H hypothesis T testing ........................... ...... ...................... .. ......... ....... .. 65
A ncillary A naly ses .............. ................................................ ............ .. .... ...... 67
Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions............. ... ................... ... ...............69
Use of the DLBS-2 ...................... ...................................... 73
S u m m a ry ........................ .........................................................................................................7 3

APPENDIX

A PH A SE 1 ITEM S .................... ..... ... ...... ............................. ........ .............75

B D LB S-2 FA C TO R S A N D ITEM S .............................................................. .....................78

R E F E R E N C E S ..........................................................................80

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H .............................................................................. .....................87

























6









LIST OF TABLES


Table page

Table 3-1 Diagram of Planned Missing Data Design .........................................................51

Table 4-1 Correlations of the Factors and the Total Scale ..................................................57

Table 4-2 Means and Standard Deviations of significant t-tests and ANOVA's .................58









LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

Figure 4-1 Sample histograms demonstrating similarities in Observed and Imputed data....59

Figure 4-2 Scree Plot of Factor Analysis Showing eigenvalues and Component
N u m b ers ............... ...........................................................................60









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
Of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

DESIRED LOVING BEHAVIORS ACROSS THE LIFE SPAN

By

Tom J. Tiegs

December 2008

Chair: Martin Heesacker
Major: Counseling Psychology

Previous research on college-aged participants yielded a consistent four-factor structure

describing participants' desires in their romantic relationships. The current project set out to

examine desired loving behaviors in romantic relationships in a non-collegiate sample. In order

to understand what non-collegians want in order to feel loved, participants completed a free-

response questionnaire regarding what actions elicit feelings of love. A second sample of

participants then rated those items in the context of their own relationships. The responses were

then factor analyzed to produce a coherent factor structure. A 46-item scale containing five

factors emerged and shows what behaviors people reportedly desire to feel loved by their

romantic partners. The factors are labeled: Relationship Support, Scripting, Personal Support,

Respect, and Sex. The items and factors were then tested for differences in loving desires, as a

function of seven individual differences. Significant effects were found as a function of

differences in participant gender, age, parenthood status, work status, and the length of the

relationship. No differences were found as a function of income.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Desired Loving Behaviors Across The Life Span

There are essentially two schools of thought about the nature of the interpersonal

behaviors that create satisfying romantic relationships (Abelson, 1963). The first is the school of

cold (or dispassionate) cognition, in which satisfying romantic relationships result from the

conclusion that one is getting back as much or more than one is giving to a relationship or, said

somewhat differently, that one and one's partner are giving similarly to each other and to the

relationship. The second is the school of hot effectivelyy imbued) cognition. The hot cognition

school posits that the affective meaning one assigns to the behaviors of a romantic partner are

critical in determining whether those behaviors do or do not result in satisfaction with the

relationship. If the behaviors mean one is loved, satisfaction increases. If not, satisfaction

decreases. However, evidence supports both hot and cold approaches and reveals that each

approach contributes independent and substantial variance to the prediction of relationship

satisfaction. To date, most of this work and virtually all of the hot cognition work has been

conducted on collegians. The purpose of the present investigation is to examine the validity of a

common measure of these romantic relationship-relevant hot cognitions, namely the Desired

Loving Behavior Scale (DLBS; Heesacker, Smith, & Lawrence, 1998) with a more diverse

sample and to assess whether hot cognition's contribution to relationship satisfaction of

collegians would be mirrored in the responses of adults not currently enrolled in college courses.

The current project also examined what factors influence desires in romantic relationships (e.g.,

relationship length, marital status, or children).









Background

Intimate relationships are important to human beings. The signs of the quest for love

abound. For example, from September 2000 to September 2001 there were 2.4 million marriages

in the United States alone (National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 50, No. 8, May 24, 2002). Love

relationships are central to the lives of many people. Illustrative of this is the fact that six of the

top fifteen most stress inducing items on the social readjustment scale (Holmes & Rahe, 1967)

concern intimate relationships.

It is clear that relationships are important, but it is also no secret that occasionally people

struggle to maintain healthy relationships; that the sea of love is prone to a squall from time to

time. In a report issued by the Center for Disease Control within five years a marriage has a 20%

probability of ending in divorce. By ten years of marriage that number jumps to 33% (Vital and

Health Statistics, Series 23, Number 22, 2002). Another indication of stormy relationships is

rampant infidelity. By their very nature, statistics on extramarital affairs are hard to ascertain, but

depending on the sample, cohort, and definition of infidelity, rates of infidelity vary from

approximately 25% of committed experiencing infidelity to more than 50% (Blow & Hartnett,

2005; Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948).

Relationship difficulties are not limited to married couples. Heesacker, Stanley, and Tiegs

(2004) found similar rates of infidelity in dating relationships. According to Carlson (1987) 36%

of college students will experience some form of abuse in their dating relationships. Infidelity

and abuse represent relationships at their worst, but what about when people are simply

dissatisfied with their partners and want to improve their relationships? Three primary theories

have attempted to articulate the factors that nurture and sustain relationships as well as those that

hurt and end relationships. A brief review of these theories will be presented next. Understanding

these theories is vital to understanding the rationale for the proposed research.









Thibaut and Kelley (1959) proposed social exchange theory. Social exchange theory posits

a cost-benefit analysis of the relationship as central to relationship satisfaction. An individual

considers the rewards and costs of being in a particular relationship, as opposed to other

alternatives. This model predicts that as the rewards increase and costs decrease a person will be

more satisfied and place a higher value on the relationship.

In equity theory, Adams (1965) built on social exchange theory, taking into account the

extent to which each partner benefits from the relationship. Equity theory suggests that it is

possible that one partner benefits too much while the other partner benefits too little from the

relationship. Both partners will become dissatisfied in this situation; so, for a couple to be

satisfied, equity of perceived of costs and benefits is needed.

Rusbult's Investment Model (1980, 1986, 1998) is also related to Thibaut and Kelley's

social exchange theory. Rusbult created the Investment Model Scale to measure commitment

level, investment size, and quality of alternatives, as well as relational satisfaction. The theory

posits that satisfied relationships involve high rewards and low costs. The investment model also

suggests that commitment increases as partners invest more resources in the relationship making

other alternatives less attractive.

What these theories share is a perspective on relationship satisfaction that Abelson (1963)

would likely characterize as "cold cognition". Abelson was the first scholar to publish work

distinguishing between cold and hot cognition. Cold cognition is defined as relatively devoid of

affective intensity, characterized primarily by logic and facts, whereas hot cognition is relatively

saturated with affect. Abelson's distinction suggests that a theory that focuses on hot instead of

on cold cognition may provide a complementary understanding of the sources of relationship

satisfaction, beyond the variance accounted for by the cold-cognition models. One such affect-









based, hot cognition model is Heesacker's desired loving behavior theory (Heesacker, Smith, &

Lawrence, 1998; Mejia-Millan, Heesacker, & Todd, 2006).

The desired loving behavior theory proposes that individuals want to feel loved by their

romantic partners; that specific actions by the partner signal the degree to which people feel

loved, and that people differ in the amount and type of behavior they desire in order to feel

loved. According to this theory, the extent to which their partner provides these desired loving

behaviors affects feelings of being loved and consequently relational satisfaction. Heesacker and

colleagues created the Desired Loving Behaviors Scale (DLBS; Heesacker et al., 1998) to test

the theory. Heesacker et al. developed the DLBS to examine what actions romantic partners

desired from one another in order to feel loved. The DLBS has been used to assess for

discrepancies between what people desire and what they receive from their romantic love

partner. The DLBS is a 39-item survey that assesses the extent to which participants want and

receive various behaviors in four domains including Sex, Scripting (communication),

Relationship Support, and Caring Actions. The DLBS was found to be valid and reliable (Tiegs

et al., 2008). The scale allows for the calculation of a score that assesses the degree of

discrepancy between what desired loving behaviors one person wants and what that person

reports receiving from the partner. The magnitude of this discrepancy is inversely related to

satisfaction (Mejia-Millan et al., 2006). Participants in current relationships reported lower

discrepancy scores than those in failed relationships. Furthermore, Mejia-Millan et al. found that

the discrepancies between desired and received loving behaviors significantly predicted

relationship satisfaction above and beyond variance accounted for by the equity and investment

models. They also found that the degree to which the received behavior was believed to represent









feeling loved consequently determined the importance of the behavior in influencing relationship

satisfaction, thus supporting a hot cognition perspective.

Not only are these discrepancies important, research indicates that they are also large.

Across three studies (Samson, 1996; Cawood & Heesacker, 2001; & Mejia-Millan et al., 2006)

the average discrepancy ranged from .8 to 1.2 (on a 5-point scale). Cohen (1988) would

characterize the effect sizes of desired-received loving behavior discrepancies as large

(Heesacker et al., 2003).

Beyond assessing relationship satisfaction, the DLBS has been found to be useful in

examining gender similarities and differences, gender stereotypes, and beliefs about emotions.

Heesacker et al. (2003) used the DLBS to demonstrate that men and women are quite similar in

what they desire in romantic relationships, a finding that contradicts commonly held gender

stereotypes. Other research using the DLBS revealed that participants held inaccurate and over-

exaggerated beliefs about what men and women desire in romantic relationships (Tiegs &

Heesacker, 2005). Ongoing research using the DLBS includes projects on gender similarities,

gender roles, and relationship satisfaction. The DLBS has also been suggested for use in couple's

counseling (Heesacker, Smith, & Lawrence, 1998). In order to raise awareness and facilitate

discussion, both members of the couple can complete the DLBS to help delineate what their

individual desires are and where their desires are and are not being fulfilled in the relationship.

All of these projects show the utility and broad applicability of the Desired Loving

Behavior Scale in understanding relationship satisfaction, gender similarities and differences,

gender roles and stereotypes, and gendered emotions. To date, however, the DLBS has only been

normed on college-aged participants (i.e., approximately 18-22 years old). While the scale









clearly has been useful in the college population, romantic relationships extend beyond those in

college.

The Current Project

There are a number of factors that may influence what people desire from romantic

partners in order to feel loved. The current project used two phases two examines these desires.

Phase 1 created a list of items provided by participants of what they desire in order to feel loved

in their relationships. Phase 2 then factor analyzed those items and used the resulting factors to

examine differences in the sample on various characteristics including age, the presence of

children, SES, relationship duration, marital status, career status, and culture, among others. All

of which likely impact desired behaviors. Each of these factors will be discussed briefly in

context of relationships and relationship satisfaction. Some desired loving behaviors may be

relevant across groups whereas others may be relevant to just some groups. The four factors

seem to represent core needs in relationships. It is hypothesized that these factors will be

replicated in non-collegiate samples. However, it is likely that there may be other factors as well

(e.g., related to children or work status) in the non-collegiate sample that will vary compared to

responses of collegians. The hypotheses associated with each of these aspects will be discussed

in the following sections.

Gender

Previous research has shown a consistent effect wherein women desire more relationship

support than do men (Heesacker et al., 2003, 2006). Common stereotypes suggest that men may

desire more sex and women may desire more communication (scripting) but there is mixed

support for these notions about men and women (Heesacker, Wester, Vogel, Wentzel, Mejia-

Millan, & Goodholm, 1999; Canary & Emmers-Sommer, 1997; Allgeier & Royster, 1991). One

consistent gender difference is that women desire more relationship support than do men









(Heesacker et al., 2006). Research has also shown a consistent difference in desires for sex in

men and women (e.g., Hatfield, Sprecher, Pillemer, & Greenberger, 1988; Sprecher, 2002). It is

hypothesized that women in the current study will report more desires than men on the

relationship support subscale of the DLBS and that men will desire more sex than women. No

other differences are predicted regarding gender.

Age

As people age and their life circumstances change, it is quite likely that their needs and

desires in romantic relationships will also change to reflect their current life demands. Research

suggests that sexual behaviors change as people grow older. These changes are associated with

many factors including physiological changes, loss of partners, and changes in living

arrangements among other factors (Long, Burnett, & Thomas, 2006). The advent of Viagra and

other drugs to treat erectile dysfunction, coupled with new attitudes towards sexuality in older

adults, is changing the stereotype of older adults as asexual (Kingsberg, 2000; Crooks & Bauer,

2002). Even with this change in beliefs about of sexual attitudes and behaviors in older adults it

is hypothesized that younger adults will report more sexual desires and that there will be an

inverse correlation between age and reported desires on the sex subscale of the DLBS.

As people age, it is also likely that their desires for caring actions may change. The

necessity to provide informal, at-home health care is increasing as the population ages (Tiegs et

al., 2006). Many people will require this type of care, which is frequently provided by spouses.

While this care is often needed for the patient's survival and well-being, it certainly is an

expression of love. There are no predictions about any differences on the relationship support or

scripting subscales of the DLBS associated directly with age.









Relationship Length

Studies (e.g., James, 1981; Samson, Levy, Dupras, & Tessier, 1991, Brewis & Meyer,

2005) have indicated that sexual behavior decreases significantly after the first or second year of

marriage. Research examining communication suggests that some people have more difficulty

communicating as the length of their relationship increases (West, 2005). Rosen-Grandon,

Myers, and Hattie (2004) compared short duration marriages against longer duration marriages

and found that expression of affect, sex, and other marital characteristics (including romance and

support, among others) were not significant predictors of relationship satisfaction in the longer

marriages whereas they were in shorter marriages. Accordingly, an inverse correlation is

hypothesized between desires on the sex, scripting, caring actions, and relationship support

subscales of the DLBS and length of relationship.

Children

The presence of children has been shown to decrease the level of sexual activity in

romantic relationships (James, 1981). The absence of children has also been linked in some

couples with greater expression of affect, and cohesion and they may have more time to give to

the relationship in such activities as talking and supporting one another (Callan, 1984). For the

current project it is hypothesized that couples without children will desire more relationship

support, scripting, and sex as indicated by their DLBS scores. No group differences are predicted

in the level of caring actions, but the items may differ in parents versus those without children on

the caring actions subscale. That is, people with children will desire caring actions associated

with child rearing whereas those without children will not.

Hypotheses Summary

To summarize, the hypotheses for the current project are as follows:









1) Hypothesis 1 the factor structure of the new DLBS will match the factor

structure of the original DLBS.

2) Hypothesis 2 women will desire more relationship support than men in order to

feel loved.

3) Hypothesis 3 men will desire more sex than women in order to feel loved.

4) Hypothesis 4 there will be an inverse correlation between age and desire for sex

as it relates to feeling loved.

5) Hypothesis 5 there will be an inverse correlation between relationship length and

all DLBS factors.

6) Hypothesis 6 couples without children will desire more relationship support,

scripting, and sex in order to feel loved than couples with children.









CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

"Love is a many splendored thing."

The Four Aces

Love is complex. Much has been written over the years to understand and define love (e.g.,

Beall & Sternberg, 1995). A search of the PsycInfo database for the word "love" resulted in

nearly 14,000 citations. Inherent in the complexity of love are components over which

individuals have some agency and other aspects that are out of the sphere of an individual's

influence. For example, one can control and change how often he or she talks or has sex with his

or her partner. A person cannot as easily decide to alter one's neurobiology for the benefit of the

relationship (Marazziti, 2005). Other components fall somewhere between no agency and total

agency (e.g., attachment style, Bowlby, 1982; culture, Dion & Dion, 2006). Beall and Sternberg

(1995) defined love as "an idea that includes information about (a), the beloved, (b), the thoughts

that accompany love, (c), the feelings that accompany love, and (d) the actions, or the relations

between the lover and the beloved" (pp.433-434). It is worthwhile knowing, understanding, and

defining all of these aspects of romantic love. However, for the purpose of this review I will

focus on the actions and relations between the lover and the beloved; that is, the more concrete,

behavioral aspects of love that people can theoretically change in themselves and in the ways

they behave. The current chapter will review relationship models in order to describe the

components of love with a focus on the behavioral aspects in each model/theory. The review will

describe inclusion and exclusion criteria, it will discuss approaches to love as a single factor as

well as multifactor approaches to love to better understand the behaviors of love.









Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria in the Current Review

There are many conceptualizations, definitions, and theoretical approaches to

understanding love including: love as attachment (Bowlby, 1982; Hazan & Shaver, 1987), love

as motivation (Aron & Aron, 1996), and love as social construction (Dion & Dion, 1996) just to

name a few. In the current review I chose to focus on taxonomies of love with a focus on

behavioral components.

Models of romantic relationships and relationship research were included in or excluded

from the review based on a few criteria. First, they had to be based on empirical approaches to

love and discussed/reviewed in the empirical literature. This criterion excluded from review

unsubstantiated popular cultural theories of love and even well-meaning but unsubstantiated

clinical theories of love (e.g., Freud, 1922, 1955 as cited in Sternberg and Beall, 1991). Second,

they had to focus on romantic relationships as opposed to other types of interpersonal

relationships (e.g., parental, sibling, friend relationships). Third, they needed to include a

discussion of love, as opposed to just relationship satisfaction or enhancement. This criterion

precluded a few well known relationship models (e.g., Thibaut & Kelley, 1959; Rusbult, 1998)

because of their exclusion of a discussion of love. Also, the research needed to focus on love

rather than include love as a byproduct of the model or research. For example, exchange and

equity theories are relationship theories that consider love, if at all, as a byproduct of relationship

satisfaction. Fourth, the research had to present or test a model of love as a whole concept rather

than simply looking at particular aspects or correlates of love relationships. I wanted to examine

relationship models and theories rather than all available research on the topic of behaviors in

love. There is a great deal of good research available on these different specific behaviors (e.g.,

Harvey, Wenzel, & Sprecher, 2004; Sprecher, 2006), but I wanted to focus on general love

models. I chose to focus on models that describe what love consists of rather than on research









explaining how to get love, keep it, or lose it. Fifth, I also excluded discussions of theories that

do not identify specific behaviors one can engage in, things such as attachment style (e.g., Hazan

& Shaver, 1987), culture (e.g., Dion & Dion, 2006) or love as self-expansion (Aron & Aron,

1996). These theories were excluded from the discussion because they do not identify specific

behaviors one can engage fall within the realm of one's control, but do not represent specific

behaviors that one can do to increase love in their relationship. Search terms for the current

review included: components of love, features of love, love theory, relationship theory and love,

what is love, conceptions of love, taxonomy of love, love factors.

The current chapter will review theories and literature from two broad perspectives on

love: love as a single factor with many components and the perspective that love has many types.

The perspectives will be defined and theories and research from each approach will be reviewed

for how they explain behavioral aspects of love. Then shortcomings in this literature, as it relates

to the current project, will be identified.

Perspectives on Love

Two main perspectives exist within the empirical approaches to love (Murstein, 1988;

Berscheid, 1988). The first suggests that love is a single factor containing multiple components.

The second suggests that there are many types of love each with its own components (e.g., Lee,

1973; Hatfield, 1988). In the current review the focus is not on the different types of romantic

love per se (I, among others, believe that the single factor approach has more validity; e.g.,

Sternberg & Grajek, 1984; Murstein, 1988) but the multifactor approaches do address some

behavioral components of love not addressed by the single-factor approaches. Thus theories from

each approach will be discussed for what they add to the understanding of behaviors related to

love.









Love as a Single Factor with Various Components

Theories and research that conceptualize love as a single factor with multiple sub-factors

will be reviewed next. The focus will be on the overt actions that demonstrate the components or

sub-factors of love.

Heesacker, Smith, & Lawrence (1998) created the Desired Loving Behavior Scale (DLBS)

to examine what behaviors people wanted in order to feel loved in their romantic relationships.

The DLBS was created by explicitly asking participants what actions and behaviors they wanted

their partners to do or say in order to feel loved. The results of which yielded four factors,

Relationship Support, Scripting, Caring Actions, and Sex. Heesacker, et al. (1998) found that

college students frequently desired actions that made them feel that their partners were

committed to the relationship and to improving the relationship. They called this factor

Relationship Support. Sample items from the Relationship Support scale include "creating a

feeling of security between us" and "accept my imperfections". College students also reported

that they wanted to hear certain sentences or phrases said to them by their partners to feel loved.

These items included "say to me, you mean so much to me" and "say to me, I'll always love

you". They also desired their partners exhibit caring actions toward them, such as helping with

the laundry or leaving a note on their car. Finally, the participants in Heesacker et al.'s research

wanted sexual behaviors in order to feel loved by their partners.

In a similar research paradigm Critelli, Myers, and Loos (1986) asked couples to rate

items about the type of love they experienced. Critelli et al. based their work on love theories

proposed by Erich Fromm and by feminist theory. One-hundred twenty three heterosexual dating

dyads completed the protocol (246 people). Participants varied in age from 18-28 years old with

a relationship length ranging from two weeks to five years. Participants in this research were

instructed to rate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with love items provided by the









researchers. Participants also each wrote a love letter regarding their current relationship, which

was then evaluated for love-related themes. The researchers employed both top-down and

bottom-up approaches. Five factors emerged from their research: Romantic Dependency,

Communicative Intimacy, Physical Arousal, Respect, and Romantic Compatibility. Pertinent to

the current review are the factors of Communicative Intimacy (being able to openly

communicate with one's partner), Physical Arousal (attraction and sex related items), and

Respect (being respectful of one's partner). Less pertinent are the factors of Romantic

Dependency and Romantic Compatibility. Romantic Dependency is more about feeling reliant

on one's partner and Romantic Compatibility is about interpersonal similarities. Both factors

reflect beliefs held by partners rather than actions one can engage in to improve the relationship.

Communicating, physical expressions of love, and showing respect all emerged as behavioral

components of love. These factors are present in many models of love.

Marston, Hecht, and Robers (1987) completed research along these same lines, in many

ways similar to the work done with the DLBS. They set out to understand how people

communicate love to their partners. In two studies, Marston et al. compiled a list of factors

describing what actions people use to communicate love. Seventy-six participants completed

Study 1 of which 50% were men. Ages of the participants ranged from 21 to 54 years old. Study

1 gathered information about how the participants understand love. Participants were then asked

how they communicated to and received love from their partners. Cluster analysis of participant

responses yielded six factors: Collaborative Love (supporting each other through intensified

emotional experiences), Active Love (doing things together and discussing emotions), Secure

Love (talking about intimate topics and doing things for each other), Intuitive Love (non-verbal

communication of love), Committed Love (talking about where the relationship is going in the









future), and Traditional Romantic Love (saying I love you and being romantic). A follow-up

study used a self-categorization cluster analysis to examine the factors created in Study 1. Three

samples were used in Study 2. The first sample including 29 participants (72% of whom were

female) that ranged in age from 21-62 years. The second and third sample consisted of 94 (78%

were female) and 62 (52% were female) participants that had an average age of 20.5 years.

Samples 2 and 3 consisted of undergraduate students. Participants from all three samples first

responded to the items created in Study 1 and were then instructed to think about their

relationships and categorize themselves in one or more of the proposed factors. Study 2 yielded

slightly different categories. Four of the six original factors remained (Active Love,

Collaborative Love, Committed Love, and Intuitive Love). The Traditional Romantic Love

factor appeared to split into two categories: Expressive Love (traditional communications of

love) and items that remained from the original cluster analysis, which the authors again named

Traditional Romantic Love. The Secure Love factor received no support in Study 2 and was

dropped. However, three new factors emerged: physical contact as a way of both communicating

and feeling love and togetherness as a way of feeling love.

The items and factors produced by Marston, Hecht, and Robers (1987) in many ways

mirror those produced in the DLBS research. Marston and colleagues set out to understand and

classify the ways that people send and receive love. The behaviors that they found associated

with communicating love matched closely with items in the original DLBS. Marston et al. took

their work a step further and made the leap to classifying types of love based on these

communication styles. They achieved varying degrees of success in labeling peoples'

experiences. Even so, their categories shed much light on concrete-behavioral components of

how people experience love ranging from physical closeness to simply saying "I love you".









Rubin (1970, 1973) also took a factor-analytic approach to understanding love. Rubin set

out to create a love scale that differentiated liking from loving. He created an item set covering

both liking and loving based on previous writings on the nature of love (i.e., Freud, 1955 as cited

in Rubin, 1970; Fromm, 1956). From there Rubin asked participants (158 heterosexual dating

couples enrolled at a large Midwestern university) to separate items into love and liking

categories. Seventy items were retained and then rated by students in context of a romantic or a

platonic relationship. Two scales, one for liking and one for loving, were created based on the

students' responses. Each scale had 13 items. Rubin found that one large factor emerged on the

loving scale, representing a mix of behaviors and concepts. Examples of such behaviors include

confiding in their partners, doing things for one another, caring for the other, forgiving their

partners, being possessive of one another, and cheering up each other when feeling down. Rubin

also found a correlation between liking and loving. Not unexpectedly, he found that partners in

love also reported liking one another. Rubin also examined gazing behavior and found that

partners in love spent more time looking at each other, which he proffered as an example of

exclusiveness and of absorption in the relationship. Based on this work, Rubin suggested that

love consists of three components, affiliative/dependency needs, predisposition to help one's

partner, and exclusiveness or absorption in the relationship. Inherent in these structures are the

behaviors of communication, being faithful (fidelity), caring for one another, self-sacrificing,

forgiveness, and simply looking at each other. Additionally, the correlation between loving and

liking scales suggest that there is a component of love that involves behaviors associated with

friendship, such as respecting, trusting, and being confident in one another.

Steck, Levitan, McLane, and Kelley (1982) reviewed and revised Rubin's theory to

emphasize the importance of caring and needing in the conceptualization of love. Using some of









Rubin's Love Scale items and some of their own items, Across five studies involving 133 male

and 199 female undergraduate students enrolled at a large Southwestern university, Steck et al.

found evidence to support their claim that caringfor one's partner is a more central component

of love than is needing one's partner. They also found that need is more associated with

attraction than is caring. They suggested that caring is a more central concept to love than is

need. However, the authors stressed that both aspects, care and need, are important to

relationships particularly at different stages. In the early stages of relationships, need may be

more important as it helps facilitate attraction, whereas later in relationships care may take on a

more central role. Sample items assessing care and need include "I feel concerned for 's

well-being" (care) and "I want to feel that is a part of me" (need).

Like Rubin (1970), Davis and Todd (1982; see also Davis, 1985) sought to distinguish

between love relationships and friendships. They said that friendships consist of the following

factors: enjoyment, acceptance, respect, mutual assistance, confiding, understanding, and

spontaneity. They proposed that love relationships had all of the factors of friendships but that

they also consisted of what they called a passion cluster and a caring cluster. The passion cluster

includes fascination (attending to the lover above other things), exclusiveness (commitment and

fidelity), and sexual desire. The caring cluster includes giving the utmost and being an advocate

for one's partner. Across three studies involving 143 participants (most of whom were college

students) they found that the model was able to distinguish between lovers and close friends,

although they found that friends and lovers were quite similar in their caring behaviors.

Predictably, they found that the passion cluster was the best predictor in differentiating friends

from lovers. Again, the behaviors of passion and caring appear central to the conceptualization of

love.









Forgas and Dobosz (1980) created a taxonomy of love and romantic involvement. They

had participants (61 male and 68 female undergraduate students) write out lists of different types

of romantic relationships. A separate sample then sorted those relationship types into

homogenous categories of their own making. Participants were encouraged to decide for

themselves into which categories the relationships should be placed. Participants then rated the

relationships in each category for similarity to the others in the same category. Forgas and

Dobosz then completed a multidimensional scaling matrix analysis that yielded a three-

dimensional solution. This solution characterized components of love relationships. They found

that relationships in their list varied on the dimensions of desirability, love and commitment, and

sexuality. The dimension of desirability includes how much each partner wants to be in the

relationship. For example, people who got married simply because they got pregnant rated low in

relationship desirability whereas couples that dated for a long time and married were rated as

high in desirability, because being in the relationship was evidently desirable. The second

dimension, love and commitment, reflects the permanency of the relationship. One-night stands

were rated as being low in love and commitment and long-term marriages were rated high on this

dimension. The last dimension of loving relationships described by Forgas and Dobosz was

sexuality. Couples that engage in frequent sexual behavior and physical contact would score high

on this dimension. Forgas and Dobosz found that all relationships contained various levels of

these dimensions. In loving relationships, couples will experience some desire to be in the

relationship, a sense of commitment to the relationship, and sexual contact within the

relationship.

Sternberg and Grajek (1984) compared three structural models of the nature of love.

Borrowing from theories of intelligence, Sternberg and Grajek tested whether love was a single,









undifferentiated factor (that is, Spearmanian in nature), comprised of many overlapping bonds

(that is, Thomsonian in nature), or a set of several primary factors (that is, Thurstonian in nature).

Thirty-five men and 50 women completed a love history and many love instruments including

the Limerence Scale (Steffen, McLaney, & Hustedt, 1982), the Lasswell-Hatkoff Love Scale

(Lasswell & Lobsenz, 1980), items from the Liking and Love Scales (Rubin, 1970), and items

from Levinger's scale of interpersonal involvement (Levinger, Rands, & Talaber, 1977) as well

as other measures of personality and functioning. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 70 years

and the average age was 32 years old. Factor analyses were run on the participants' responses.

Results suggested that love fits best within a Thomsonian model, wherein there is a single strong

general factor followed by other weaker factors. Sternberg and Grajek posited that the general

factor consists of the following behavioral aspects: "(a) deep understanding of each other, (b)

sharing of ideas and information, (c) sharing of deeply personal ideas and feelings, (d) receipt

and provision of emotional support to the other, (e) personal growth through the relationship and

helping of the other in his or her personal growth, (f) giving help to the other, (g) making the

other feel needed and needing the other, (h) giving and receiving of affection in the relationship

(pp. 327)".

In later research, Sternberg (1988, 1997, 2006) described three components of love in his

relationship model. Intimacy, passion, and commitment constitute the three parts of Sternberg's

triangular model of love. Intimacy occurs, according to Sternberg, when couples share personal

information about themselves. Passion, according to Sternberg, is the sexual desire felt within the

relationship. Commitment, in his view, is a cognitive component wherein individuals in the

relationship make conscious decisions to be in love and to stay in the relationship. Each of these

three components of love includes behavioral aspects. Intimacy is increased when partners are









vulnerable with each other and accepting of the other person. By talking and sharing details of

their lives couples can increase the amount of intimacy in their relationship and increase this

aspect of love. Other behaviors that increase intimacy are working to bring out each other's

strengths and helping to overcome weaknesses, observing the needs of one another, being gentle

and kind, and making their partner feel special (Sternberg & Beall, 1991). Couples can increase

the amount of passionate love they experience by engaging in sexual behavior. Individuals have

the choice to be committed to the relationship and can behave accordingly (i.e., by maintaining

fidelity in the relationship). Sternberg then created classifications of love based on the presence

of one or more of the components. For example, if all three components are present, couples

experience what Sternberg calls Consummate Love-a full, complete type of love. However, if

one or two aspects of love are missing, couples can work to increase that piece in their

relationship to attain Consummate Love. Sternberg suggested if none of the three pieces is

present then there is not love at all-a relationship state that he called non-love.

Baumeister and Bratslavsky (1999) provided some theoretical support for the components

of passion and intimacy. They found that these two aspects were highly correlated and that

passion appears to increase with increases in intimacy, again suggesting that the two pieces are

very much related. Their findings also suggest that couples hoping to increase passion can raise

the level of intimacy in their relationships; that by sharing more of themselves and their lives that

they may be able to experience greater passion.

Sternberg (2006) also proposed what he called a sub-theory of love. He described that the

components of love (intimacy, passion, commitment) come out of the stories we construct

around love. The stories we have regarding love are multiple and range from simple to complex,

but all of them help us to conceptualize love and our love relationships. This theory states that as









people interact with their environments they create the stories that influence how they perceive

love and how they act in their loving relationships. Also, he proposed that people have some

agency over stories to which they attend and toward which they devote energy, although there is

also an unconscious, automatic process associated with story construction as well. Sternberg said

that people often don't even realize that they have a love story or that their love story may be

very different from the stories of others. He also said that problems arise when individuals are

unable to live up to their own love stories; that they sometimes don't have the awareness that the

stories are constructed and therefore can be reconstructed. Research on this theory shows that

relationships are more likely to succeed when partners have similar love stories. Although he

noted that the number of love stories is potentially limitless, Sternberg, Hojjat, and Barnes

(2001) found common themes in the love stories reported by participants. One-hundred five

undergraduate participants (55 women, 50 men) ranging in age from 17 to 26 completed the love

stories scale. Examples of common love stories include those entitled: Love is Art (love of a

partner that is beautiful and aesthetically pleasing), Cookbook Love (following a recipe for love

by doing the right things at the right time makes the relationship more likely to succeed), and

Love is Travel (love is an adventure and a journey). Sternberg stated that the stories serve as

complex scripts for how we comprehend and behave in our relationships. People's love stories,

according to Sternberg, are both causes of behavior and affected by behavior. The stories also

vary in salience based on individual and situational differences. Research on the love stories

endorsed by participants found that maladaptive stories correlated with problems in relationships.

However, the research did not find an increase in relationship satisfaction based on endorsement

of adaptive or positive love stories. Potentially, people can increase self-awareness of their love

stories and can change them to reduce relationship dissatisfaction and increase relationship









satisfaction. Sternberg suggested that our love stories are similar to automatic thoughts seen in

cognitive behavioral theories. Individuals can challenge their automatic thoughts and

consequently can change how they behave in relationship. The reverse can also hold true. People

can alter how they act in their relationships and in doing so can reconstruct their love stories.

Although, research by Jackson, Chen, Guo, and Gao (2006) suggested that the love stories

people tell are highly influenced by their culture.

Fehr (1988) asked participants (103 women and 37 men) to list the features of love and

commitment. They produced 68 common attributes of love and 118 attributes for commitment.

The top five items (as measured by the percentage of participants listing that item) for love are:

caring, happiness, wanting to be with the other, friendship, and feeling free to talk about

anything. The top five items (as measured by the percentage of participants listing that item) for

commitment are: perseverance, responsibility, living up to your word, devotion, and faithfulness.

A second set of participants (111 female and 56 male undergraduate students) then rated the

centrality of each item to its corresponding component-love or commitment. Trust was the

most central item to love. Caring, honesty, friendship, and respect make up the top five most

central items to love. Loyalty, responsibility, living up to your word, faithfulness, and trust

comprise the top five most central items to commitment. Fehr used these data to create what she

called prototypes of love and commitment. She wanted to understand the content and structure of

the concepts of love and commitment. Again, many aspects of her love prototypes involve

concrete actions (e.g., caring for each other, living up to your word, talking openly, sacrificing

for the other person). This research further demonstrates the concrete nature of certain aspects of

love (see also Fehr & Russell, 1991; Fehr, 1994).









Aron and Westbay (1996) examined the work of Fehr (1988) and confirmed a three-factor

prototype structure of love. Aron and Westbay instructed participants (168 undergraduate

students) to rate items on their centrality to love (items were taken from Fehr, 1988). An

exploratory factor analysis of their responses yielded three factors, which they labeled Passion,

Intimacy, and Commitment. Participants (253 undergraduate students) completed a follow-up

study using a confirmatory factor analysis. Results of the confirmatory factor analysis supported

the three-factor solution. Sample items from each component include: gazing at each other,

physical attraction (Passion); feeling free to talk about anything, being supportive (Intimacy);

putting the other first, missing the other when away (Commitment). This research supports

Sternberg's (1988) model of love using a factor-analytic approach. As previously stated, couples

can use this knowledge and knowledge of their own relationships to make behavioral changes to

increase the love they experience with one another. With familiarity of the individual items on

each scale couples can concretely work to improve each particular component. For example, they

can gaze at each other more often to increase passion or they can support one another by

communicating to develop more intimacy.

Gottman (1979, 1999) has done extensive work studying relationships and relationship

patterns. He studied a wide variety of participants across many different age groups. He and his

colleagues have created an intricate model of relationships, which includes behavioral

components. Gottman called his theory for relationships the "The sound marital house: a theory

of marriage". His theory focuses on well-being in marriages, but can also be generalized to other

types of romantic relationships. Gottman proposed that there are two required components to any

relationship, a certain level of positive affect and the ability to decrease negative affect when

conflict arises. Of these two key parts, he described seven particular components. The first three









components are cognitive room (how much an individual thinks/knows about their partner),

fondness and admiration system (the amount of respect and affection in the relationship), and

turning toward vs. turning away-the emotional bank account (how the individuals view the

relationship, what he described as a "me or we" orientation and the ratio of positive to negative

interactions). These aspects all contribute to the fourth component called Positive/Negative

Sentiment Override. Sentiment Override describes how individuals interpret their partner's

actions-along the spectrum from good to neutral to bad. Gottman posited that if the first three

parts of the model function well, then the Positive Sentiment Override is enacted. Partners will

then tend to interpret neutral or even negative actions as positive or at least as less negative.

Whereas if the first three components are not in place or not functioning well, then people will

tend to interpret their partner's behaviors as negative. The next component of his theory involves

conflict discussion and regulation, which depends on the Sentiment Override. He proposed that

conflict regulation is much easier when couples engage in Positive Sentiment Override-they

give their partner the benefit of the doubt and problems are then easier to resolve. The next piece

in his relationship model is making dreams and aspirations come true, what he also called

avoiding marital gridlock. This piece is related to accepting partners accepting influence from

one another to achieve their individual and combined life goals. The ability to regulate problems

and accept influence at this level helps the couple to achieve their goals together. The final piece

of the model is creating shared meaning. Gottman proposed that each couple has its own culture;

a culture that is constructed and co-created by the individuals. The culture of the relationship

includes the rituals, roles, goals, and symbols in the relationship.

Many aspects of the sound marital house theory involve behaviors that a couple can

engage in or change to facilitate a good relationship. At the level of cognitive room, Gottman









proposed a list of questions that help increase the amount that partners know and think about

each other. He called these questions "Love Maps". Sample questions include: "I know my

partner's best friends", "I know my partner's favorite music", and "I can tell you in detail my

first impressions of my partner." Gottman suggests that partners be able to answer these

questions and he even created cards in a game format that people can use to learn more about

their partner. Making the effort to know and think about one's partner increases the stability of

the relationship. The emotional bank account also involves behavioral components. This level of

the model includes Gottman's well known 5-to-1 ratio of positive to negative interactions. He

found that stable happy couples had at least five positive exchanges for every one negative

exchange. Couples aware of this ratio and aware of their actions can consciously work to exceed

this minimal level of positive to negative exchanges. Creating shared meaning also involves

many behavioral aspects of love. Couples co-create meaning in their relationships. They can

actively create new rituals (e.g., having dinner together nightly, or a weekly date night) that

contribute to the love that they share.

In a different research line, Clark and Monin (2006) outlined their work regarding a

theory describing receiving communal responsiveness as a central component of love. The

behavior of communal responsiveness focusese] on one another's needs and welfare, attending

to needs and promoting welfare" (p. 202). When this behavior is reciprocated by both partners it

leads to feelings of safety, security, and even love. Clark and Monin stressed that the

responsibility for communal responsiveness resides with both partners-the responder and the

receiver. Obviously, the responder must act in a way that attends to the needs and welfare of the

other. Less obvious is the role of the receiver. Receivers of the nurturing actions must be willing









to be vulnerable and trust that their partners will respond in favorable ways. The combined

actions of the partners can lead to an environment of ever-increasing intimacy.

Clark and Monin (2006) suggested that there are important considerations in creating a

relationship conducive to communal responses. They proposed that individuals must be willing

to receive nurturing responses from their partners. Responders must also be aware of how to best

react to ensure the well-being of their partners. To that end, self-disclosure about needs of each

partner becomes important. Expectations and beliefs about whom to seek out for communal

responsiveness also play a role. That is, people have hierarchies of supporters. For example, a

spouse might be at the top of a person's hierarchy, meaning that the person will go to the spouse

early and often to have needs fulfilled. Lower in the hierarchy might be another family member.

A co-worker might represent someone lower yet in the support hierarchy. Communal

responsiveness is potentially maximized when there is a similarity in expectations and both

parties hold a similar place in the hierarchy of the other person. Love can still flourish in one-

sided communal relationships, where one partner is more giving and the other partner is

receptive of those actions. Even though responsiveness is imbalanced, there is a lot of love

perceived in the relationship. Another aspect that facilitates love involves where one places

oneself in his or her own hierarchy. People feel responsible for their actions and often engage in

self-soothing behavior, which is normal and adaptive. However, if someone places himself or

herself high above the partner in intimacy, the relationship might suffer. In essence, this pattern

leads to a greater self-focus and can cause less sacrifice and compromise for the other person's

benefit (i.e., less communal responsiveness).

Clark and Monin (2006) also proposed the importance of trust in romantic relationships.

They said they people must trust their partners to care for them, but also that they must trust that









their partner wants to receive their help. Without this trust, vulnerability and intimacy are lost.

They suggested that exchange relationships decrease trust because it makes partners feel as if

they must repay their partners for their good deeds. While this pattern creates equality, it might

work to reduce trust, communal responsiveness, and love.

The theory of communal responsiveness ties well to behavioral components of love.

Through the actions of providing caring and nurturing responses partners can increase

vulnerability, trust, and intimacy. People can also foster love by being willing to seek out and ask

their partners for care and support. The behavior of reciprocity also enhances love. Combined,

these acts of communal responsiveness serve as base components of love in relationships.

Using a factor analytic approach, Swensen, Nelson, Warner, and Dunlap (1992; see also

Swensen, 1972) produced a six-factor solution for describing the components of love.

Participants provided items of what they did, said, and felt about their romantic-love partners.

Three groups of participants then rated how often they experienced those items and their scores

were then factor analyzed. The analysis produced the following six factors: verbal expression of

love; self-disclosure; toleration of loved one's bothersome aspects; moral support,

encouragement, and interest; feelings not expressed; and material evidence of affection. The

behaviors of love indicated by Swensen et al. match closely with findings from other love

research. For example, tolerating a partner's bothersome aspects matches with the ideas of

forgiveness proposed by Rubin (1970). Communication, support, interest, and material support

are common themes in many models of love.

The research literature that conceptualizes love as a single factor is plentiful. The

behavioral components of love that make up the sub-factors are varied, although many common

themes emerged. Themes such as communication, respect, sexual behavior, trust and fidelity









were found in much of the reviewed work. These themes are also prevalent in the research that

takes a multi-factorial approach to love, as is evident in the next section.

Multifactor Approaches and Other Conceptualizations of Love

Theories and research studies that posit that many different types of love exist are reviewed

next. These many-loves approaches vary in their conceptualization of love, but many of the same

behaviors that were present in the single factor approaches are present in these perspectives.

Lee (1973, 1988) took the approach that there are many kinds of love, as opposed to love

being comprised of a single factor with many components. He conceptualized different types of

romantic love that he called love-styles (see also Lasswell & Lasswell, 1976). He proposed that

people often grow up learning a particular type of love, which will more or less match to their

partners' love-styles. He posited that the more similar partners are in love-style the better the

relationship will likely be. He also stated that it is quite possible for people to change their love-

styles. Inherent in each love-style are different behaviors that are apt to change with alterations in

one's love-style. Lee reportedly collected data from 120 heterosexual, community participants of

all ages in the streets of cities in England and Canada.

Lee (1988) suggested that love is analogous to a color wheel-that there are some primary

colors (or styles) that people can combine in varying degrees to produce nearly any color of the

proverbial love rainbow (or can be used to describe any relationship). He described what he

called the three primary and three secondary colors of love. Theoretically, each of these styles

and their associated behaviors can be more or less present in any romantic relationship. The

primary colors of love include Eros, Storge, and Ludus. Eros represents passionate, physical,

intense, erotic love. Physical attraction, sex, and sexual behavior are actions commonly

experienced by the Eros-style lover. Storge is love that develops over time that focuses on

affection and commitment commonly associated with friendships. Sexual behavior is less









important to storgic lovers, but rather they will express and experience their love through

maintaining commitments and by engaging in shared activities with their love partners. Ludus

represents love marked by game-playing. The Ludus lover does not feel the intense love of Eros,

nor the need for commitment experienced in Storge. The Ludus lover behaves in a way that is

very focused on the present and may feel little desire to maintain long-term relationships.

The secondary colors of love proposed by Lee (1988) are mania, pragma, and agape.

Mania is a combination of eros and ludus. There is an intense desire for the love partner, but

contradictory feelings of not liking the partner or not wanting to commit to the partner, which

resembles ludus. The manic lover, however, cannot easily disconnect from the lover in the same

way that a purely ludic lover can. Pragma is a combination of ludus and storage. The pragma

lover takes a practical approach to love. Pragma lovers have a set of criteria that they are looking

for in a partner, which may include physical attributes but not in the same way as an eros lover.

They are looking for a long-term partner to whom they can commit and will shop around (like a

ludus lover) until they meet that person. Agape is conceptualized as a selfless, giving love. The

agapic lover feels a duty to love. According to Lee agape is a combination of eros and storage.

Agape-style lovers may feel intense love for their partners but they would express it in behaviors

that are more consistent with storage. They will be self-sacrificing and very giving and caring to

their partners.

Lee (1988) theorized that love is very complex and that these styles are just a beginning to

understanding the intricacies of love. The potential combinations of the various love-styles in

individual relationships are nearly limitless, but the behaviors in each of Lee's love-styles are

not. There are commonalities of caring, commitment, physical expressions of love, shared

activities, and expression of affect. The ludus style brings a new set of behaviors to the









discussion. The ability to disconnect from love partners is a behavior rarely discussed in the

context of romantic relationships. Lee even admitted that one could argue that this is not love at

all, were it not for so many people endorsing these types of love experiences. Acceptance,

openness, and tolerance for ambiguity in the relationship (i.e., lack of jealousy) are behaviors

associated with ludus. The flexibility of Lee's love-styles helps to describe many different kinds

of relationships and many different approaches to love. For example, what works for the ludus-

style lover would surely not work well for partners in a more traditional conceptualization of

love. As Lee proposed, it is important that partners be closely matched in their love-styles.

Research by Mathes (1980) challenged Lee's "colours of love". Mathes conducted a factor

analysis on participants' responses to love items taken from Lee's love styles. The sample

consisted of 56 dating couples. The average age of male participants was 19.76 years old and the

average age of female participants was 18.73 years old. Contrary to Lee's theory of love, results

showed that only one factor emerged. Mathes proposed that romantic love is consistent with

what Lee called eros and that the ludus type of love is antithetical to romantic love. Research by

Hendrick and Hendrick (1986) supported Lee's work by suggesting that the love types can

indeed be measured and that they have stability as factors.

Hatfield (1988; see also Berscheid & Walster, 1974; Hatfield & Walster, 1978; Hatfield &

Sprecher, 1986; Singelis, Choo, & Hatfield, 1995) described two forms of love, passionate and

companionate love. She defined passionate love as an intense type of love with a strong sense of

physical attraction and arousal. She also argued that it can be intensely pleasurable but can also

cause considerable pain if unrequited. Behaviors associated with this type of love include serving

the other person, physical closeness, studying the other person, and working to understand the

other person's feelings. Passionate lovers are often driven by intense feelings, both positive and









negative, which they experience regarding the other. In contrast, companionate love is "the

affection we feel for those with whom our lives are deeply entwined" (Hatfield, 1988, p. 205).

Hatfield described companionate love as having much more intimacy and closeness with the

other person. In companionate love there is a desire to get to know the other partner on a much

deeper cognitive and emotional level than seen in passionate love. Companionate lovers will

behave in ways that maximizes their likelihood of increasing intimacy. They will spend much

time in close physical proximity touch or gazing into one another's eyes. Companionate love

increases with more positive experiences and, unlike passionate love, decreases with negative

experiences. Hatfield explained that the two categories are not mutually exclusive and that many

relationships include aspects of each type of love. Rather, she said that the difference is the

emphasis in each type-passionate love focuses on intense positive and negative feelings

whereas companionate love focuses more on positive interactions. Hatfield suggested that most

people in relationships seek to have components of both types of love in their romances. In

addition to her descriptions of behaviors inherent to the love styles, she prescribed a few actions

that individuals can take in order to increase their intimacy. She encouraged partners to accept

themselves and their partners as they are. She also proposed that people work to express

themselves and their feelings and that they should learn how to deal with their lover's reactions

to their own behaviors. In all, the behaviors in these types of love match the behaviors seen in

many of the other models including: physical closeness, communication, serving the other

person, and intense sexual arousal. She highlighted the need for partners to accept themselves

and each other, as well as the need for people to learn coping skills to deal with the reactions of

their partners. These actions seem vital for increasing intimacy.









Buss (2006) outlined a theory that proposed that love is both a cause and an effect of

certain behaviors. Buss studied participants of all ages in many cross-cultural settings seeking the

universal aspects of love, romantic relationships, and sexual behavior. He suggested that certain

actions elicit feelings of love and that feeling loved has been evolutionarily adaptive. For

example, he stated that love is a commitment device-that feeling loved helps to ensure that

partners will stay together even through difficult times. Further, partners will likely feel loved

when they experience commitment. Love is both an antecedent and consequence of behavior.

Buss found that many different behaviors indicate commitment and that commitment can take

many forms. These behaviors include providing resources (such as shelter and food), a

commitment of sexual resources (maintaining sexual fidelity to the partner), reproductive

resources (having children together), and parental resources. He proposed that all of these actions

involve some level of self-sacrifice and signify the presence of love. He contended that

emotional commitment (e.g., talking with

The research on love is nearly as many-splendored as love itself. However, examining the

literature reveals a few noteworthy points for critical discussion. Most pertinent to the current

project is one's partner about his or her stresses) is another example of behavior that increases

love and produces love.

Theories and research that adopt the view that there are many different types of love were

reviewed. Including many different types of love broadens how we understand love and broadens

the definition of a loving relationship. For example, Lee's game-playing love style might not be

accepted by many as love, but it does describe the experience of some people and in that way is

important to consider in the discussion of love. Love is complex. Having many approaches may

hold the key to understanding it better.









Critical Review of the Literature

One critique of the reviewed literature is the common practice of researchers using samples

of convenience to gather data. Many of the reviewed articles and love theories are based on the

experiences of undergraduate college students. A few notable exceptions are the work by

Gottman and the work of Lee. Gottman recruited couples from the community to come

participate in his lab and Lee went to the streets of cities in England and Canada for his

participants. In creating theories of love based on the experience of college students, scholars

potentially miss out on the insight and experience of adults beyond early developmental stages of

romantic relationships. Generalizing results from college students to all adults may include

components of love that adults do not have or miss altogether important considerations in adults'

experiences.

Another critique of the love literature reviewed here is that it is primarily based on self-

reports. Gottman's work is again the exception. He examined participants' physiological and

emotional responses (e.g., heart rate, facial expressions of emotion). Using self-reports can be

useful particularly when studying such an ambiguous topic as love. After all, who knows better

than the participants how they experience love. But it is worthwhile to note the limitations of

using self-reported data.

A third critique of the literature is that much of it appears to be deferential to just a few

research protocols. Many different articles included the same references to earlier work. Some of

the articles examined and tested those theories, but it occasionally appeared as if researchers

uncritically generalized previous findings to different populations. Two examples of this critique

are researchers' apparent deference to Sternberg and their apparent opposition to Lee. Many of

the reviewed articles cited Sternberg and his triangular theory of love. A lot of subsequent

research has examined those components, but part of Sternberg's work was based on research









using a small sample with a limited age range. A different example is the treatment of Lee's love

styles. A number of papers appeared to negate Lee's love styles with little acknowledgement of

the ways that those approaches might have value. Admittedly it is not the responsibility of each

paper to question all previous research and theory, but reviewing the literature made it clear that

questioning some of the early research may prove valuable.

Summary

In reviewing the literature it is clear that love is amorphous and indeed quite complex.

But it also becomes clear that there are many concrete, behavioral components of love as well.

Many of these behaviors are found in the models of love; many elements of which are quite

similar to the factors and items in Heesacker et al.'s DLBS (1998). Caring, communication,

providing support, respect, and sex all are common pieces in several of the love models.

However, many other behavioral components are present in love relationships including:

accepting influence from each other, advocacy, commitment, conflict regulation, creating shared

meaning, desire, doing things together, enjoyment of each other, exclusivity, expression of

positive affect, forgiveness, honesty, nonverbal expressions of love, responsiveness, self-

sacrifice, tolerance, trust, vulnerability, and in some love styles even game-playing.

Review of the empirical literature provided evidence supporting the validity of the factors

of the Desired Loving Behavior Scale. Reading through the literature reveals that the items found

in the DLBS are not complete in describing what every couple would desire from their romantic

relationship. However, it also clear that the factors elucidated in the DLBS represent many of the

common features that couples look for and want in their relationships.









CHAPTER 3
METHODS

The current project included two phases. Participants created items for the new DLBS in

Phase 1. Phase 2 then used the items provided in Phase 1 to develop the new version of the

DLBS and to test the proposed hypotheses.

Phase 1

Participants A wide variety of participants was recruited in order to get a general sample.

College students at a large Northeastern university were asked to forward the survey to family

and friends, 18 years of age and older, not currently enrolled in undergraduate college courses.

Participants that completed the survey were also asked to forward the survey to other people

meeting the criteria.

This method, known as "snowballing," is designed to yield a diverse sample. One hundred

ten people completed the survey (80 women, 30 men). The average age of the participants was

35.25 years (SD = 12.33) ranging from 19 to 78. Of those reporting ethnicity, 82 (76.6%)

identified as European-American, 13 (12.1%) identified as other, 5 (4.6%) as African-American,

5 (4.6%) as Latino/Latina, and 2 (1.8%) identified as Asian-American. People recording

ethnicity as "other" reported a variety of ethnic backgrounds including Indian, African,

Caribbean, multiracial, Chinese, Portuguese, and Spanish. Half (55) of the participants who

responded indicated that they were married, 20 (18%) indicated they were single, not currently in

a relationship, 20 (18%) indicated they were single but currently dating someone, 5 (4.5%)

reported their relationship status as other, 4 (3.6%) said they were cohabiting, 5 indicated that

they were divorced, with 2 participants reporting that they had remarried, and 1 person indicated

being widowed but remarried. The average relationship length was 12.53 years (n = 85, SD =

12.7) with a range of two months to 58 years. Forty-three out of 100 people reported that they









have children, 24 of which reported that they were still the primary caregivers for their children

(i.e., their children are still dependent on them). The average number of children was 2.5 (SD =

1.35). The majority of participants indicated that they worked full time (n = 69, 62%) followed

by graduate students (18, 16%), part-time (14, 12.6%), other (5, 4.5%), unemployed (3, 2.7%),

and retired (2, 1.8%). Participants reported annual income as follows: Less than $15,000 (13,

11.9%), $15,001-$30,000 (22, 20%), $30,001-$50,000 (22, 20%), $50,001-$75,000 (27, 24%),

$75,001-$100,000 (14, 12.8%), and Greater than $100,000 (11, 10%). Of those reporting sexual

orientation, 102 (93%) were heterosexual, 6 (5%) were gay or lesbian, and 2 (2%) were bisexual.

Measures Participants were asked to freely respond to five items asking them to write in

specific behaviors they desired in order to feel loved by their romantic partners (see Appendix

A). Participants also completed demographic items.

Procedure Participants were recruited via the Internet using a snowball technique. The

survey was completed on-line. Participants completed an on-line informed consent document

prior to participating in the protocol. Upon completion of the surveys, participants were

debriefed and thanked.

Phase 2

Participants As in Phase 1, a wide variety of participants was sought in order to get a

broad sample across such demographic information as age, gender, marital status, parenthood,

and career status. To run a principal components factor analysis, approximately five participants

were needed per questionnaire item. To meet this criterion, 600 participants were recruited for

this phase. Participants for Phase 2 were recruited from non-collegiate samples utilizing the same

method as in Phase 1. Undergraduate students from two large, public universities in the

Southeast and Northeast and one small private university in the Midwest were asked to forward









the survey to friends and family who were not currently enrolled in undergraduate college

courses.

This snowball method of enlisting participants again yielded a diverse sample. Six hundred

and eighty-one people completed the survey. Thirty-four participants indicated that they were

currently enrolled in undergraduate courses and were thus excluded from the sample. The

demographic information for the remaining participants follows. Of those completing the

demographic information 394 (71.5%) were women and 157 (28.5%) were men. The average age

of the participants was 41.6 years (SD = 13.4), the median age was 44 and the mode was 51.

Participants ranged in age from 18 to 83 years old. Ninety-five percent of those indicating sexual

orientation identified as heterosexual (521), with 3.3% (18) identifying as gay or lesbian, and

1.3% (7) identifying as bisexual.

Of those reporting ethnicity, 469 (85.9%) identified as European-American, 27 (4.9%)

identified as Hispanic/Latino/Latina, 20 (3.7%) as African-American, 12 (2.2%) as Asian-

American, and 18 (3.3%) reported ethnicity as other including Native American/Pacific Islander,

Caribbean, Middle Eastern, Indian, African, and mixed ethnicity. Three-hundred and nineteen

(58.7%) participants in the sample indicated that they were married, 75 (13.8%) indicated that

they were single but currently dating someone, 66 (12.2%) indicated that they were single and

not currently in a relationship, 27 (5.0%) indicated they were cohabiting, 27 (5.0%) indicated

that they were divorced and remarried, 16 (2.9%) indicated that they were divorced and single, 8

(1.5%) reported being widowed, and 5 ( 0.9%) reported being widowed and remarried.

The average reported relationship was 16.6 years (n = 427, SD = 12.6) in length, with a

range of one month to 49 years. Three-hundred sixty-six of 515 (71.1%) participants reported

that they had children. The modal number of children for those participants was 2 with a median









of 2.5 with a range of 1 to 7. Two hundred fifty one people reported that they were still the

primary caregivers for their children (i.e., their children are still dependent on them). The

average number of children for whom the participants reported being the primary caregiver was

1.4 (SD = 1.14). The majority of participants indicated that they worked full time (n = 347,

63.2%) followed by part-time (108, 19.7%), graduate students (33, 6.1%), retired (28, 5.1%),

unemployed (23, 4.2%), and other (10, 1.8%). Participants reported annual income as follows:

Less than $15,000 (65, 12.1%), $15,001-$30,000 (70, 13.0%), $30,001-$50,000 (118, 21.0%),

$50,001-$75,000 (102, 19.0%), $75,001-$100,000 (72, 13.4%), Greater than $100,000 (105,

19.5%), and other (6, 1.1%).

Measures Participants were asked to record the extent to which they desire each of the

newly created items in order to feel loved by their partners. The original items from the DLBS

were included along with the new items. Demographic information was also collected.

Procedure Participants completed an on-line informed consent document prior to

participating in the protocol. The survey was conducted on-line. Participants were informed that

after responding to the surveys they could vote for one of their favorite charities and that the

charity receiving the most votes would receive $1 for every 10 completed surveys. Upon

completion of the surveys, participants were shown a debriefing page describing the purpose of

the research that included contact information for follow-up or questions.

Because of the large number of items and the large number of participants needed to run a

factor analysis, Phase 2 used a planned missing data procedure. Schafer and Graham (2002)

described the planned missing-data procedure (see also Graham, Cumsille, & Elek-Fisk, 2003;

Graham, Taylor, Olchowski, & Cumsille, 2006). In brief, the participants and the items are

divided into three groups. Each group of participants completes two-thirds of the items. Each









group of items is completed by two groups of participants, with overlap. For example,

Participant Group 1 completes Item Groups 1 and 2, whereas Participant Group 2 completes Item

Groups 2 and 3. Finally, participant group 3 completes Item Groups 1 and 3 (see Table 3-1). This

method results in one third of the data being missing. However, the missing data can be imputed

from the existing data with reasonable accuracy. The maximum likelihood method was

employed to estimate values for the missing data. Schafer's (1999) estimation program (NORM)

was used to create parameter estimates and to run a single imputation that provided accurate

estimates of the missing data. Schafer (NORM; 1999) reported that a single imputation of

missing data is robust and adequate for the purposes of running exploratory analyses. The

estimated values were rounded to the nearest observed value in the data set.

Participants were instructed to complete one of the variations of the survey based on the

day of their birth. Participants born in the first four months of the year completed Item Set 1

(Item Groups 1 and 2), participants born in the second four months of the year completed Item

Set 2 (Item Group 2 and 3), and participants born in the last four months of the year completed

item set number three (item group 1 & 3; See Table 3-1). To control for order effects, the order

of the items was varied across the different sets of items. The number of people completing each

item set was roughly equivalent (Set 1 = 211, Set 2 = 237, Set 3 = 199). The responses of the

participant groups were examined using an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with Bonferroni

post-hoc tests. Statistically significant differences were found in Factor 2 [F(2, 644) = 3.1, p=

.046, rp2= .01] and Factor 3 [F(2,644) = 5.88, p < .01, rp,2 = .018]. Bonferroni post-hoc analyses

revealed statistically significant differences between Participant Groups 1 and 3 on Factor 2 (p =

.039) and Factor 3 (p < .01). Because of these differences additional ANOVA's were conducted

to analyze for group differences in demographic variables. Participants did not differ on any of









the demographic variables as a function of which form they took. The data imputation might be

responsible for the participant group differences because the missing, and therefore estimated

data, appears to be confounded with participant group membership. Participants completing Item

Set 1 did not complete any of the items in Factor 2 (i.e., data for those items were imputed).

Likewise, participants completing Item Set 3 did not complete any of the items in Factor 3 -

those too were imputed. However, all of the imputed items were estimated based on responses

completed by other participants completing those forms. Because the imputed data is created

based on the actual reported data the two data sets should theoretically be related, not different.

Context effects could account for these differences. The order that participants received the items

could have impacted their responses. Participants were assigned to the groups based on the

month of their birth with the assumption that there is no connection between month of birth and

loving desires. No other order effects appear in the responses. Correlations between the means of

the observed data and the imputed data for all forms were very strong (as they should be)

suggesting that these differences might be a spurious result or some other unseen context effect.

It is also possible that these differences occurred by chance, especially with such a large

sample. In such a large sample any effects might be magnified, particularly given that the Partial

Eta squared values were indicative of small effects. In this circumstance, the Partial Eta squared

represents the variance accounted for by the effect compared to the total variance. With one

factor in the ANOVA Partial Eta squared is numerically identical to Eta squared and can be

interpreted as a percentage of variance accounted for; similar to an r2 value. As such, the

significant difference between Groups 1 and 3 found in Factor 2 accounts for 1% of the variance

and the difference found on Factor 3 accounts for 1.8% of the variance. Future research using a

confirmatory factor analysis without a planned missing data design is likely to clarify these









issues (see the Chapter 5 section on future research). There were no other statistically significant

differences on any of the other factors as a function of the item set participants completed.

Data Analysis Data were analyzed using a principal components factor analysis with

Varimax rotation to reduce the number of items on the DLBS. Inspection of the resulting scree

plot and factor loadings was used to determine the number of factors. Items having a factor

loading with an absolute value of at least .30, which also loaded less than an absolute value of

.30 on any other factor were considered to have achieved simple structure and therefore were

included on that factor (Grimm & Yarnold, 1995). Cronbach's a's were calculated to examine

item cohesion.

Hypothesis Testing. A number of different methods were used to test the various

hypotheses. The factor structure (Hypothesis 1) of the new DLBS was analyzed using a principal

components factor analysis with Varimax rotation and scree plot analysis. Internal consistency

was examined using a Cronbach's a internal consistency analysis. Gender differences

(Hypotheses 2 and 3) on the DLBS subscales were examined using t-tests. Pearson Product

Moment correlations were conducted to test Hypotheses 4 and 5, looking at the relationship

between age, relationship length and DLBS factors. Hypothesis 6, which assessed whether or not

having children influenced desires, was examined using t-tests. Also, correlation analyses were

conducted to see if a relationship existed between the number of children people had and their

desires. An ANOVA was conducted to assess differences on the new DLBS factors as a function

of work status and income.












Table 3-1 Diagram of Planned Missing Data Design
Item Group


Participant Group

1

2

3


1

Completed

Completed

Missing


2

Completed

Missing

Completed


3

Missing

Completed

Completed









CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

Phase 1

Participants generated over 500 responses, many of which were redundant. Duplicate

items were removed and all of the responses were edited for grammar and wording. Items were

also edited to be gender neutral. Phase 1 yielded 125 non-redundant items to be used in Phase 2.

Phase 2

Planned Missing Data Analysis Analysis of the missing data revealed that, as expected,

between 33%-43% of the data were missing in each item group. Parameter estimates were

calculated for each item group based on the observed data and a single imputation was

completed for each group of items. Histogram plots of the imputed items closely mirrored plots

of the observed items (See Figure 4-1). The means and standard deviations of the observed and

imputed values were also highly correlated (Means: r = .97,p < .001; SD's: r = .93,p < .001).

Factor Analysis A principal components factor analysis with Varimax rotation was run

and yielded 49 factors with eigenvalues over one. Analysis of the scree plot (See Figure 4-2)

indicated that a six-factor solution parsimoniously accounted for the most variance. However, all

of the items in the sixth factor cross-loaded onto other factors and consequently it was dropped.

The resulting five factors, with a total of 46 items (see Appendix B), accounted for 32% of the

total variance. Factor one included 14 items and represents ideas of providing support to each

other in the relationship. Factor one is titled "Relationship Support". Factor two has 8 items and

represents notions of romance and indications of why the individual is loved in the relationship.

Factor two is labeled "Personal Support". Factor three consisted of 8 items and included items

regarding loving statements that a person desires to hear from their partner. Factor three is titled

"Scripting". Seven items make up factor four. The items all involve desires for being respected









in the relationship and the factor is titled "Respect". The nine items in factor five all relate to

desires for sex and a healthy sexual relationship. Factor five is called "Sex". Items are averaged

and combined producing a mean score of the items for each factor. A score for the Total scale is

also calculated. The Total scale is scored by averaging all of the items together.

Cronbach's a To verify internal consistency reliability analyses were conducted for each

factor and for the total scale. The new version of the DLBS proved to have adequate internal

consistency (Relationship Support a = .91, Personal Support a = .86, Scripting a = .87, Respect a

=.84, Sex a = .86, Total scale a = .90).

A correlation matrix was run to examine the relationships among the factors and the total

scale. All but one pairing were found to be significantly correlated to one another. Factors 4 and

5 were not correlated with each other. The remaining factors including the total scale all

correlated with each other. Theoretically it follows that the factors are all related. However, it

should be noted that the threshold for significance is easily met with such a large sample.

Examination of effect sizes showed that these relationships range from small to large with many

of the effects falling in the small range (See Table 4-1).

Hypothesis Testing The resulting 46 items combine to form the new version of the

DLBS, the DLBS-2. As outlined above, scores on the DLBS-2 were computed for each factor by

averaging the items in each factor. A total score for all items was calculated using this same

method. The factors of the DLBS-2 were then used to examine the hypotheses proposed in

Chapter 1.

Hypothesis 1 predicted that the factor structure of the new version of the DLBS will match

the structure of the original DLBS. This hypothesis received partial support. Three factors from

the original DLBS appear to be reflected among the new factors, Relationship Support, Scripting,









and Sex. Caring Actions did not seem as important to the non-collegiate sample because that

factor did not re-emerge in the DLBS-2. Two additional factors not seen in the collegiate sample

appeared in the life-span sample, Personal Support and Respect. At the level of individual items,

12 items from the original DLBS remained on the DLBS-2.

Hypothesis 2 predicted that women in the sample would desire more relationship support

than men in order to feel loved. A t-test revealed a statistically significant difference with women

scoring higher than men [t(549) = 549, p < .001; a small effect, d= .37]. See Table 4-2 for means

and standard deviations of all t-tests and ANOVAs. Hypothesis 3 predicted gender differences in

desires for sex as it relates to love and was supported. Men desired significantly more sex than

did women [t(549) = 3.244, p <.005, d= .27, a small effect]. A statistically significant inverse

correlation supported Hypothesis 4. There was an inverse relationship between age and desires

for sex (r = -1.22, p < .005, r2 = .015), a small effect. Hypothesis 5 predicted a negative

relationship between the length of relationship and all of the original DLBS factors. Hypothesis 5

received partial support. The prediction that there would be an inverse relationship between

relationship length and desire for sex in order to feel loved was supported (r = -.129, p < .01, r2 =

.017), but it was a small effect. Incidentally, age and relationship length were predictably

correlated (r = .78, p < .001, r2 = .61, a large effect). Also, the total DLBS-2 score inversely

correlated with relationship length (r = -.111, p < .05, r2 = 0.012, a small effect). There were no

other significant correlations between relationship length and any of the other DLBS-2 factors.

However, it was not possible to examine the correlation between relationship length and caring

actions because caring actions did not emerge as a factor in the DLBS-2.

Hypothesis 6 suggested that couples without children will desire more sex, relationship

support, and scripting to elicit feelings of love. This hypothesis received partial support. Whether









or not participants had children was recorded into a dichotomous variable and Hypothesis 6 was

then tested using a t-test. People without children desired more Relationship Support [t(645) =

2.26, p < .05, d= .18, a small effect] and Sex [t(645) = 2.59, p < .05, d= .20, a small effect] to

feel loved. However, there was no difference in Scripting [t(645) = 0.61, ns]. A correlation was

then conducted to see if there was any relationship between the factors and the number of

children. None of the relationships between the number of children and the DLBS-2 factors

achieved conventional levels of statistical significance.

Ancillary Analyses In addition to the hypothesis tests, exploratory analyses were

conducted on the data. As mentioned previously, gender differences were predicted and found on

the Relationship Support and Sex subscales. Additional t-tests revealed other gender differences.

Participants also differed on the other three DLBS-2 factors as a function of participant gender.

Women desired more Personal Support [t(549) = 4.28, p < .001, d= .37, a small effect],

Scripting [t(549) = 2.67, p < .01, d= .23, a small effect], and Respect [t(549) = 5.94, p < .001, d

= .51, a medium effect] to feel loved as compared to men. An ANOVA was also conducted to

examine group differences in the DLBS-2 factors based on work status. Differences were found

in Factor 2 [F(7, 541) = 2.24, p < .05] and Factor 4 [F(7, 541) = 2.49, p < .05]. Bonferroni post-

hoc analyses revealed that participants that reported their work status as "Graduate Student"

desired more "Personal Support" to feel loved than people that reported working full-time (p <

.05). Analysis of Factor 4 differences found that graduate students desired more "Respect" to feel

loved than participants who reported their work status as "Other" (p < .05). Participants who

recorded that work status as "Other" included four homemakers, two self-employed workers, and

one person in-training to become a full-time worker. The small number of people in this group

suggests caution in generalizing from this finding.









Income was also analyzed using an ANOVA. No differences on any of the factors were

found based on the participants' income. While this is not an appropriate test for confirming that

differences do not exist in love based on one's income, it is nonetheless informative that there

were no differences based on income in such a large sample.

Additional t-tests revealed other differences in people with vs. without children. Testing of

Hypothesis 6 found that people without children desired more Sex and Relationship Support in

order to feel loved. Ancillary analyses found that people without children also desired more

Personal Support [t(645) = 2.1,p < .05, d= .17, a small effect] and that, in general, people

without children desired more from their partners to feel loved, as demonstrated by significant

differences on the Total DLBS-2 scale [t(645) = 3.2,p < .005, d= .25, a small effect].

In summary, results suggest that the data collection successfully produced a survey

assessing desired loving behaviors in a non-collegiate sample. The survey includes five factors:

Relationship Support, Scripting, Personal Support, Respect, and Sex. Hypothesis testing and

ancillary analyses revealed differences on these factors based on participant gender, age,

parenthood status, work status, and the length of the relationship. Additionally, inverse

correlations were found among age and desire for sex, and in relationship length and desire for

sex as it relates to love.












Table 4-1 Correlations of the Factors and the Total Scale
Correlations of DLBS-2 Factors


Relationship
SuDDort


Personal
SuDDort


Scripting Respect


Total


Pearson Correlation 1.000 .160(**) .140(**) .230(**) .301(**) .680(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Relationship N 647 647 647 647 647 647
Support Effect size (r2) .0256 .0196 .0529 .091 .462
Pearson Correlation .160(**) 1.000 .271(**) .515(**) .083(*) .613(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.000
Personal N 647 647 647 647 647 647
Support Effect size (r2) .0256 .0734 .265 .0069 .376
Pearson Correlation .140(**) .271(**) 1.000 .162(**) .151(**) .578(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
N 647 647 647 647 647 647
Scripting Effect size (r2) .0196 .0734 .0262 .0228 .334
Pearson Correlation .230(**) .515(**) .162(**) 1.000 0.035 .542(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.371 0.000
N 647 647 647 647 647 647
Respect Effect size (r2) .0529 .265 .0262 .001 .294
Pearson Correlation .301(**) .083(*) .151(**) 0.035 1.000 .570(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.035 0.000 0.371 0.000
N 647 647 647 647 647 647
Sex Effect size (r2) .091 .0069 .0228 .001 .3249
Note. Effect sizes indicate amount of variance explained by each factor. Effect sizes (r2) values below .01 are considered negligible, values
between .01 and .059 are considered small effects, values between .059 and .138 are considered medium effects, and values above .138 are
considered large effects.
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).












Table 4-2 Means and Standard Deviations of significant t-tests and ANOVA's

Means and Standard Deviations
Full- Other work
Non-parents Grad time status
Women Men Parents Students work
Relationship
Support 4.24 (.50) 4.04 (.50) 4.13 (.55) 4.25 (.52)
Personal
Support 3.52 (.68) 6.24 (.68) 3.92 (.79) 3.40 (.69)

Scripting 3.45 (.75) 3.26 (.74) 3.37 (.75) 3.42 (.83)

Respect 4.33 (.52) 4.02 (.59) 4.55 (.35) 3.83 (.53)

Sex 2.63 (.67) 2.84 (.75) 2.64 (.69) 2.81 (.74)

Total DLBS 3.67 (.38) 3.53 (.39) 3.60 (.38) 3.71 (.40)














Figure 4-1 Sample histograms demonstrating similarities in Observed and Imputed data


obs10


S 1 obs2
obs10


imp10


Mean 3 66
Std Dev -0 863
N =429


S 6


Note. Observed data and imputed data for item 1.


Observed


Imputed


2 -


Mean 3 51
Std De =1 056
N 392


obs250


060 160 260 3 0 40 0
imp250


Note. Observed data and imputed data for item 22.


Mean =3 61
Std Dev =0919
N =199


Mean =306
Std De =1 047
N=211


5 n 6 on


i;; I I I I I I


,I I :
;I I i


I \
j
I




\\`1















Figure 4-2 Scree Plot of Factor Analysis Showing eigenvalues and Component Numbers.


11 11 III 111 1 I II
1 2 3 4 6C 7 o 9 1011 12 13 n1 15




Component number


30-



25-



20-

c1-
il

03


10-



5-




0-









CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION

Phase 1 Love is Simple, not Easy, but Simple

Participants in Phase 1 produced an abundance of items. Some of the items were heart-

warming (e.g., snuggle together on the couch), some were depressing (e.g., "I wish he would just

listen to me once in a while"), and some were even funny (e.g., clean up the dog poop in the

yard"). Even with the wide array of items there was a commonality to what people desired in

order to feel loved by their partners that is, love is simple, not easy, but simple, at least

according to these data.

Even though the items produced in this study represent relatively simple things, these data

should not be construed to suggest that love and romantic relationships are easy. Even with the

list of simple things, the actions desired by lovers require work, commitment, and at the most

basic level, awareness. If people are unaware of what their partners desire in order to feel loved,

they will fail to fulfill those desires. Even if people are aware, they are still required to be willing

to provide them and to maintain commitment to providing those desired loving behaviors.

Moreover, as Phase 2 revealed, desires for these behaviors appear to change over time. People

and relationships are dynamic. Couples may need to revisit their desires on a regular basis and to

take inventory of what they desire, what they are receiving, and how those behaviors are

changing over time and with changing circumstances (e.g., children, age, length of relationship).

Phase 2

Factor Analysis of the DLBS-2

Analysis of the items produced in Phase 1 yielded five coherent factors with strong

internal consistency. The five factors relate closely to other previous research. Hypothesis 1

predicted that the factors found in the DLBS will be evident in the DLBS-2. Three of the factors









on the original DLBS were retained in the DLBS-2, namely Relationship Support, Scripting, and

Sex. However two new subscales emerged, Personal Support and Respect. These factors differ

from the original DLBS, but are similar to factors found in other relationship research. For

example, Critelli, Myers, and Loos (1986) came up with five factors in their research. Their

factors generally mirror those of the DLBS-2. Aspects of their Communicative Intimacy scale

are found in the Scripting and Relationship Support scales of the DLBS-2. DLBS-2 Sex subscale

is reflected in Critelli et al.'s Physical Arousal scale while Respect is a factor common to both

their study and my study. Romantic Compatibility and Romantic Dependency are reflected in the

Relationship Support and Personal Support scales of the DLBS-2.

The five factors in the DLBS-2 also represent concrete, behavioral aspects of Sternberg's

(1988) more theoretical, relationship research. Sternberg (1988) proposed three theoretical

components of love: intimacy, passion, and commitment. The Sex subscale readily translates into

passion, Scripting and Personal Support reflect components of intimacy, and Relationship

Support and Respect fit within Sternberg's concept of commitment.

Caring actions, a factor of the original DLBS, was not retained in the current research.

Items reflecting this factor were produced by participants in Phase 1. However, the factor did not

emerge as a strong component in the DLBS-2. Analysis of the factors with an eigenvalue over

one suggested that such a factor was present, but it did not account for much variance in the

current sample. The reasons for this result could be many. One explanation is that people might

desire more caring actions at the beginning of their relationships. There was great variability of

relationship length in the current sample including some new relationships, but the average

length of relationship was 16.6 years (SD = 12.6 years). The participants used to create the

DLBS were likely in a very different stage of relationship development (i.e., attraction and









relationship building as opposed to relationship maintenance) than those used to create the

DLBS-2. Also, differences could be caused by cohort effects. Older generations might desire

fewer actions than younger generations. Any differences found between the DLBS and DLBS-2

might be caused by differences in the social environment in which participants were raised or the

one in which they are presently embedded. Dion and Dion (2006) proposed that love is a culture-

bound phenomenon. Culture is dynamic and always evolving.

One of the driving factors leading to this project was the belief that having and caring for

children would be a major influence on the reported desires of those individuals with children.

Surprising to this author, no such factor emerged in the factor analysis. Participants in Phase 1

produced items regarding caring for children but these items did not account for much variance

in Phase 2. Group differences between people with and without children were found in the

desires on the factors that emerged (which will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter),

but because of the large impact of children on romantic relationships I expected a larger effect.

The data suggest instead that there are more important factors in producing feelings of love than

those linked to providing care for children. That does not mean that caring for children is

unrelated to feeling loved (although the design of this study cannot confirm or deny this

relationship), but simply that other, more influential factors related to feeling loved emerged.

In a similar vein, there was a common theme in the responses in Phase 1 that did not

survive the winnowing that occurred in Phase 2. A number of participants wrote that they wanted

to just be held, or that they wanted to be intimate with their partner without it leading to sex.

Other similar items included, "waiting for me to be ready to have sex", or "not pressuring me to

have sex". The fact that these items were not retained in Phase 2 suggests that there are more

important contributors to feeling loved. However, the issues of readiness for sex and social









pressure to have sex are important ones. It may simply be that these issues are important, but

relatively unrelated to feeling loved. People might still feel loved even though they feel a

mismatch between their own sexual desire and that of their partner. In therapeutic settings it will

be important to assess for such discrepancies even though these items are not on the DLBS-2.

One possible solution for therapists using the DLBS-2 with clients is to have them take fill out

the DLBS-2, but then also leave blanks at the end to write in other things that they desire in order

to feel loved.

Another common item produced in Phase 1 that was not retained in Phase 2 was the desire

to hear the partner say "I love you". Many participants indicated that they wanted their partners

to say they loved them, in order for them to feel loved. However, there were also many people

that supported the view that "actions speak louder than words." That is, they did not want to hear

"I love you," at least not without some action supporting the words. Rationally it follows that it

should load onto the Scripting factor; however that was not the case. In reviewing the factor

analysis, the "Say 'I love you' item" loaded onto Factor 8 (below the cut-off point indicated by

the scree plot) and it cross-loaded on another factor. This failure to achieve simple structure

necessitated that the item be dropped even though it has high face validity. The effect on scale

validity of including or excluding any one item is likely to be negligible because a lot of

variation in feeling loved will be captured by the other items. However, it might be worthwhile

to include it as an item in clinical settings, or at least to include it as a topic of discussion with a

couple in counseling. Asking participants what it means for them to hear "I love you" from their

partners and asking whether that is important to them might facilitate further discussion in a

therapeutic setting.









Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis 2 predicted that women would desire more relationship support than men in

order to feel loved. Hypothesis 2 was based on a consistent gender difference found on that

subscale of the DLBS (Tiegs et al., 2008). These gender differences were upheld in the current

sample. It appears that women, more than men, want to feel support in the relationship. This

finding suggests that women desire to focus more on the relationship at least as it pertains to

these items in order to feel loved. Popular theories have suggested that women are interested in

romantic relationships whereas men are not. One way of interpreting women's greater desires for

relationship support to feel loved might be just that-the fact that women are more interested in

the relationship. However, a more accurate interpretation might be to say that women are more

interested in working on the relationship in that way. It doesn't appear that men are uninterested

in the relationship. It just might be that they do not as strongly desire a relationship focus in

order to feel loved. The scores, while statistically different, were close, suggesting that women

and men do differ, just not that much (by Cohen's standards this was a small effect). The same

argument could be made for the findings for Hypothesis 3, also a small effect. Men desired more

sex than did women in order to feel loved. Does this mean that women are uninterested in sex?

Not hardly; again scores for women and men were statistically different, but still similar. The

point here is not to pigeonhole women and men, but rather to look at how they approach

relationships with the understanding that there are some differences, but that there are many

similarities as well. In addition, the current research tells us nothing about the origin of any

differences. Are they biological in nature or socially constructed? Or, and perhaps more likely, is

it some combination of nature and nurture?

As predicted in Hypothesis 4, the data showed an inverse correlation between age and

desire for sex as it relates to feeling loved. It is well documented (e.g., Brewis & Meyer, 2005;









Long, Burnett, & Thomas, 2006) that as people age they want less sex, whether it makes them

feel loved or not. Related to Hypothesis 4 are the predictions made in Hypothesis 5. Relationship

length was found to be inversely correlated with certain, but not all of the, factors on the DLBS-

2. Relationship length and desire for sex were predictably inversely correlated. This effect is also

likely to be related to changes from getting older. Relationship length and total DLBS-2 score

were negatively correlated, albeit a small effect. No other factors were significantly correlated

with relationship length suggesting that the drop in desire for sex likely drives the drop in total

desire as it relates to love. This finding also suggests that the DLBS-2 factors other than sex

remain important to feeling loved the relationship. It also likely means that partners must

continue to provide loving behaviors for their partners throughout the span of the relationship

that the relationship requires work to maintain feelings of love in each partner.

Hypothesis 6 introduced children as a factor in romantic relationships. As predicted,

people without children desired more sex and more relationship support in order to feel loved.

They did not, however, desire more scripting than people with children. Many possible reasons

explain this difference. The most obvious seems to be time and focus. In general, couples with

children have more distractions from the relationship. That is, simply caring for the children

requires a lot of time (not counting any additional activities that the children may be involved in

that take time away from focus on the romantic relationship). Couples without children are

perhaps no less busy, but with no children in the home they may focus on each other more both

sexually and in regards to improving the relationship. Another possible explanation is that

couples with children may get some of their love needs met by caring for their children and

consequently the romantic partner's actions are less important.









Ancillary Analyses

In addition to the predicted gender differences on Sex and Relationship Support

subscales, significant effects were found for the remaining DLBS-2 factors. Women desired

more Personal Support, Scripting, and Respect than men in order to feel loved. The differences

in Personal Support and Scripting were both small effects and whereas the difference in Respect

was a medium sized effect. These findings suggest that women simply want more from their

romantic relationships than men do. Again, it is important not to pigeonhole women and men

into restrictive gender roles but rather to examine overall patterns that may play out in individual

relationships. The current research can only demonstrate that there are differences. It cannot

speak to the origins of these differences. One speculation is that the differences in loving desires

on Personal Support, Scripting, and Respect are related to the social environment in which

participants were raised and in which they live currently. Common communication styles in the

U.S. suggest that women talk more and want to hear that they are loved (e.g., Tannen, 2007).

Also, women historically have been disadvantaged with regard to receiving respect. Women

could not vote until the 20th century. They still do not receive equal pay for equal work, and they

often dot not have access to the same resources as men. Even though these disparities are

diminishing, research (Gervais & Vescio, in press) suggests that women continued to be

disrespected in our society. The culminating effect of this disrespect in many aspects of their

lives may lead women to desire more respect in their personal relationships. Men receive respect

in many other arenas and so may desire less in order to feel loved. Or, possibly men may not

value the respect they receive from their partners or that the respect they receive does not

translate into feelings of love and consequently they have lower desires in this area. All of these

ideas are simply conjecture that may seed future research.









As mentioned in the discussion of Phase 1, the items produced by participants

represented simple things; none of the items represented desires for money or expensive gifts.

An ANOVA of income differences on DLBS-2 factors produced results consistent with this lack

of focus on money and expensive gifts. There were no differences in what people desired based

on their reported incomes. The ANOVA suggest that love and money are unrelated.

A curious, but not surprising, effect was found in the experience of graduate students.

ANOVAs revealed that graduate students desired more personal support than people in full-time

positions and more respect than people reporting work status as other in order to feel loved. The

experience of graduate school is often difficult and challenging; an experience that may elicit a

greater need to rely on social support resulting in their higher scores on the Personal Support

scale. A few possibilities exist to explain graduate students' higher scores on the "Respect" scale

compared to those indicating "Other" for their work status. Again, graduate school is a

challenging process that may lead to humble feelings, which, in turn, may cause graduate

students to desire more respect in order to feel loved from their partners. Another possible

explanation is that graduate students are more empowered and demand more respect from their

partners. Research (e.g., Phelan, Link, Stueve, & Moore, 1995) suggests that there is a

correlation between education level and endorsement of social liberal ideology. This tendency

toward liberal thinking may lead graduate students to want more respect in their relationships

than others, especially considering that many of the people in the Other category were full-time,

stay-at-home mothers. These participants represent a more traditional understanding of gender

roles in relationships, which may impact how much respect they demand from their romantic

partners. The current project was not designed to answer these questions, but in conducting these

ancillary analyses more future opportunities are possible. Another possible explanation is that









there is a sex effect confounding the results. Further exploration will likely explicate the answer

to this question.

Hypothesis 6 predicted that people without children would desire more loving behaviors

on the Sex and Relationship Support subscales. This hypothesis received support. Ancillary

analyses provided further information regarding having children and feeling loved. People

without children also had higher scores on the Personal Support and Total DLBS-2 scales. These

findings suggest that having children strongly influences how people experience their romantic

relationships. Seemingly, the focus for couples with children shifts from each other toward

caring and providing for their offspring. In fact, the only DLBS-2 factors that couples with and

without children did not differ on in their loving desires were Scripting and Respect. One

possible explanation of these findings is that the factors of Respect and Scripting represent core

aspects of the relationship. That is, that unrequited desires for these loving behaviors may lead to

dissolution of the relationship. Desires for Sex, Relationship Support, and Personal Support in

order to feel loved may be secondary to caring for children as long as there is still respect and

some expression of love between partners.

Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions

The current project has a number of strengths. The DLBS-2 was created using a bottom-

up approach. By having participants produce the items in Phase 1, the DLBS-2 represents real

life experiences and desires in adults' relationships; some of which likely could not have been

predicted by experts. Another strength is the large sample collected from the community. The

participants represented a large cross-section of the population and were not simply a sample of

convenience. Accordingly, their responses may be more representative of the population than

research done on college students. Also, the sheer number of participants allows for detection of

even small effects (this may also represent a weakness, as will be discussed later). The use of a









planned-missing data design allowed for a large number of participants to complete the survey

without being overwhelmed by an enormous number of items. This methodology represents an

additional strength of the current project.

In addition to its strengths, the current research has a few limitations. In some ways the

sample was quite diverse, but in other ways it was rather homogenous. The sample had large

variability in age and relationship length. One weakness of Phase 1 is that it only included 30

men. However those men represented a wide age range and their responses were largely

redundant with those provided by women. In addition, cultural minorities and LGBT groups

were not well-represented. Also, the sample itself was more affluent than the general population.

Again, there was wide variability in participants' reported income, but people in the highest

income bracket (annual income over $100,000 in this case) were overrepresented. There did not

appear to be any effects based on income, but income may remain as a factor to attend to. A

related limitation is that the research was conducted entirely through on-line surveys. This

method automatically introduces bias into the sample. Although many people have access to

computers and the internet, collecting data on-line might still bias samples towards higher

income level, higher levels of education, and greater technical sophistication than the population

at large. Everyone in this sample is a member of the "haves" in the digital divide. Future research

might include paper and pencil copies of the survey to be used in community settings where

people do not have access to the internet. Additionally, the sample might be skewed somewhat in

education. By having college students forward the survey to friends and family their might be a

bias toward a more highly educated sample of the population. Unfortunately education level was

not assessed in the current research so the extent of this bias is unknown.









Another potential limitation of the research might reside in and mirror one of its

strengths. The large size of the sample in Phase 2 likely elevated the chance to find significant

effects when testing hypotheses. For example, some of the gender differences might be

magnified and statistically significant simply because there were so many participants. Effect

sizes were reported and should be attended to in understanding the practical significance of

statistically significant effects.

The inability to rule out cohort effects represents a further limitation of the current project,

but also an opportunity for future research. The current research used a cross-sectional approach

and therefore constitutes a snapshot of people across age groups. However, the cross-sectional

design cannot control for cohort effects. In this case socialization around love and romantic

relationships is one example of a potentially very influential cohort effect. Going forward, a

longitudinal research design could be combined with a cohort research design to produce a

sequential design, which would increase the ability to estimate the separate influences of age and

cohort on DLBS-2 responses.

The current research presents many other opportunities for future research as well. An

important next step in any scale creation is to verify its reliability and validity. A scale's validity

depends on its reliability. Future research should assess the test-retest reliability of desires on the

DLBS-2. Theoretically, the amount of received loving behaviors will change and so it does not

make sense conceptually to evaluate the test-retest reliability of received loving behaviors.

However, as demonstrated by research on the DLBS, desires for loving behavior stay fairly

constant and should be mostly consistent over time. The factor structure of the DLBS-2 should

also be further assessed using confirmatory factor analysis as a way of verifying the established

structure. Confirmatory factor analysis will help to show how well the current factor structure









describes the experiences of participants. A confirmatory factor analysis would also help to see

how well the established factor structure would generalize to other samples.

Following assessment of test-retest reliability and confirmatory factor analysis, further

studies of the validity of the DLBS-2 should be examined. Research on the DLBS (Tiegs et al.,

2008) found that the discrepancy between desired and received loving behaviors is a good

predictor of relationship satisfaction. The same predictive relationship should be tested for the

DLBS-2. Also, convergent and discriminant validity should be assessed by comparing the

DLBS-2 to other relationship measures including possibly the DLBS.

Beyond verifying the validity of the scale, other future research involves using the DLBS-2

to examine relationship issues and patterns. It can also be used to examine gender emotion

stereotypes in romantic relationships for adults. Such research might include additional

comparisons of women and men on the DLBS-2 subscales. Gender stereotypes can be tested by

having participants rate how they think men and women would respond to the items and then

comparing that to the participants' own responses. The purpose of this line of research would be

to assess the accuracy of gender differences in order to understand in what realms women and

men may actually differ and where they are similar. Inaccurate beliefs regarding gender

differences could then be challenged to help empower women and men alike in their lives and in

their romantic relationships.

Other research could extend the utility of the DLBS-2 into counseling. Future studies

might examine couples' reactions to completing the DLBS-2 and then sharing and comparing

their answers with their partners. One intervention might be to have individuals rate how they

think their partner would respond to the items and then compare those answers to their partner's

actual responses. The idea being that taking the DLBS-2 in this context might raise people's









awareness of their partner's desires. Doing so might facilitate a discussion of what people want

from the relationship and how they can go about getting what they want from their partners.

Such discussions might lead to behavioral changes and ultimately could improve satisfaction in

the relationship.

Use of the DLBS-2

Once its reliability and validity have been demonstrated across several samples, the

DLBS-2 could be used in multiple settings with an array of applications. The DLBS-2 may serve

as a powerful research tool in understanding how adults experience love in their relationships.

Using the DLBS-2 in research settings may help to elucidate gender roles and gender differences

in how people experience and approach love in their relationships. The DLBS-2 could also be

employed to help understand the impact that other influences (e.g., age, children, education) have

on love. Research on the original DLBS demonstrated a strong relationship between relationship

satisfaction and an individual's reported discrepancy between their desired loving behaviors and

those that they received from their partners. If this discrepancy effect is replicated with the

DLBS-2, it could then be used as a predictor of relationship satisfaction and relationship

dissolution among non-collegians. Further, the DLBS-2 could potentially be used in therapeutic

settings to help facilitate discussion of and increase understanding of how partners experience

and how they want to experience love in their relationships.

Summary

The current project created a new version of the Desired Loving Behavior Scale, the

DLBS-2. The new version was created using a bottom-up approach utilizing items produced by

participants. The DLBS-2 extends the research capabilities of the existing DLBS in that the

DLBS-2 was produced and normed on a non-collegiate (i.e., non-undergraduate students), adult

sample. One of the driving forces behind creating a new version is that adults beyond the age









range of those in college experience their relationships differently. College students are most

likely still early in their relationship development and their own personal development, as well.

Older participants have likely progressed beyond those early relationship stages and therefore

may desire different behaviors from their partners in order to feel loved. They may also have

other life factors impacting their relationship, such as children. The current project demonstrated

both similarities to, and differences from the factors in the DLBS. This project produced two

new factors, and dropped one of the original factors. These new factors closely relate to factors

produced in earlier research and to ideas proposed in earlier conceptual work. Hypothesis testing

revealed significant differences as a function of gender, age, relationship length, and parenthood

on desires for loving behaviors. Such findings constitute valuable information about how women

and men experience love in their relationships as well as how age and parenthood can alter

romantic relationship desires. While limited, the current research helps to pave the way for future

studies on gender, gender stereotypes, and relationship satisfaction. In addition to its potential

utility in research, the DLBS-2 holds promise for use in therapeutic settings to facilitate

discussion and increase relationship satisfaction in couples.









APPENDIX A
PHASE 1 ITEMS

In the following space please reflect on a current, past, or future relationship and fill in

what you want your romantic partner to DO or SAY in order for you to feel loved. Note there

is a difference between what you want them to do in your relationship, and what you want them

to do in order for you to feel loved. Remember, all answers are kept confidential.

For example: You may expect your partner to help with the kids. If this is an expectation you

have unrelated to you feeling loved, do not list it. But if your partner helping with the kids helps

you feel loved, then please list it.

Please list what you want a romantic partner to DO or SAY in order for you to feel loved. List

as many as you can think of (the text box will expand).

Previous research has documented common areas that people list when asked about what they

want from romantic partners in order to feel loved.

Please reflect again on what you want your partner to DO or SAY in order for you to feel loved

with each of the listed specific areas in mind. If you listed an item in a previous section that you

think would fit here, please do not list it again.

Caring Actions some people desire caring actions from their partner in order to feel loved.

Examples of caring actions include:

Plan a candlelight dinner.

Put a note on my car.

Do my laundry every once in a while.

Please list what you want a romantic partner to DO or SAY related to caring actions that you

desire in order to feel loved.









Sex some people desire sex and sexual behavior from their partner in order to feel loved.

Examples of sex items may include:

Tell me what he/she likes and dislikes in bed.

Seduce me.

Be open to trying new sexual positions.

Please list what you want a romantic partner to DO or SAY related to sex that you desire in order

to feel loved.

Communication/Scripting some people desire to talk and to have their partner say certain

things in order to feel loved.

Examples of scripting items may include:

Tell me that I make them happier than anyone else.

Say to me, "You mean so much to me."

Say, "I love you with all my heart and soul."

Please list what you want a romantic partner to DO or SAY related to communication/scripting

that you desire in order to feel loved.

Relationship Support some people desire actions that help to build a strong relationship.

Examples of relationship support items may include:

Make our relationship a mutual project.

Be a good listener to me.

Help me through tough times.

Please list what you want a romantic partner to DO or SAY related to relationship support that

you desire in order to feel loved.









Please list any additional things that you have not listed already you want your partner to DO or

SAY in order for you to feel loved that may not fit into these areas.









APPENDIX B
DLBS-2 FACTORS AND ITEMS


Factor Item
1 1. Make me a priority in their life.
1 2. Stand up for me to others.
1 3. Remember what I say.
1 4. Be honest with me.
1 5. Get along well with my friends and family.
1 6. Make our relationship a mutual project.*
1 7. Initiate activities to strengthen our relationship.
1 8. Create a feeling of security between us.*
1 9. Look me in the eyes lovingly.
1 10. Discuss and work together to solve problems.
1 11. Live up to their promises, be true to their word.
1 12. Be fair and balanced and keep me balanced.
1 13. Be happy to see me.
1 14. Laugh with me.
2 15. Say to me, "You mean so much to me."*
2 16. Say to me, "You make me happy."
2 17. Be romantic.
2 18. Tell me they love me more than they have loved anyone else.
2 19. Ask me if they can help me.
2 20. Tell me the reasons why they love me.
2 21. Say, "All of my friends/family love you".
2 22. Say to me, "I think that we make a great couple."*
3 23. Say to me, "You look beautiful/handsome".
3 24. Tell me that I am part of their family.
3 25. Tell me that I am the most important person in their life.
3 26. Say to me, "I trust you".
3 27. Say to me, "I enjoy spending time with you more than any other person."*
3 28. When talking to others say "we" instead of "I".
3 29. Tell me that I make them happier than anyone else.
3 30. Say to me, "You make me want to be a better person".
4 31. Care about my whole person, including my mind and my body.
4 32. Help me through stress and rough times.*
4 33. Show respect for my intelligence and my contributions to conversations.
4 34. Work on our relationship together.
4 35. Be sympathetic to my feelings.*
4 36. Listen to and care about my opinions.
4 37. Be aware of how their actions impact me.
Note. Factor 1 = Relationship Support, Factor 2 = Personal Support, Factor 3 = Scripting, Factor
4 = Respect, Factor 5 = Sex. *indicates that this item was held over from the DLBS.










Factor Item
5 38. Try new things and be spontaneous during sex.*
5 39. Say to me, "Let's make love."*
5 40. Buy sexy clothes/lingerie.
5 41. Use sex toys or lotions during sex.
5 42. Oral sex.*
5 43. Leave me a sexy voicemail/e-mail at work.
5 44. Seduce me, or allow me to seduce them.*
5 45. Strip for me.
5 46. Read sexy books or watch sexy movies together.
Note. Factor 1 = Relationship Support, Factor 2 = Personal Support, Factor 3 = Scripting, Factor
4 = Respect, Factor 5 = Sex. *indicates that this item was held over from the DLBS.









REFERENCES


Abelson, R. (1963). Computer simulation of "Hot Cognition". In S.S. Tomkins & S. Messick
(Eds.), Computer simulation ofpersonality: Frontier ofpsychological theory (pp. 277-
298). New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
experimental socialpsychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Allgeier, E. R., & Royster, B. J. T. (1991). New approaches to dating and sexuality. In E.
Grauerholz and M. Koralewski (Eds.) Sexual coercion (pp. 133-147). Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.

Aron, E. N., & Aron, A. (1996). Love and expansion of the self: The state of the model. Personal
Relationships, 3, 45-58.

Aron, A., & Westbay, L. (1996). Dimensions of the prototype of love. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 70, 535-551.

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, 49-67.

Beall, A.E., & Sternberg, R. J. (1995). The social construction of love. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 12, 417-438.

Berscheid, E. (1988). Some comments on love's anatomy: Or, whatever happened to old-
fashioned lust? In R. J. Sternberg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love (pp.
359-374). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1974). A little bit about love. In T. L. Huston (Ed.), Foundations
of interpersonal attraction (pp. 355-381). New York: Academic Press.

Blow, A. J., & Hartnett, K. (2005). Infidelity in committed relationships II: A substantive review.
Journal ofMarital and Family Therapy, 31, 217-233.

Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and Loss (Vol. 1). Attachment (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books.

Brewis, A., & Meyer, M. (2005). Marital coitus across the life course. Journal ofBiosocial
Science, 37, 499-518.

Buss, D. M. (2006). The evolution of love. In R. J. Sternberg & K. Weis (Eds.) The new
psychology of love (pp. 65-86). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Callan, V. J. (1984). Childlessness and marital adjustment. Australian Journal of Sex, Marriage,
& Family, 5, 210-214.









Canary, D. J., & Emmers-Sommer, T. M., with Faulkner, S. (1997). Sex and Gender Differences
in Personal Relationships. New York: The Guilford Press.

Carlson, B.E. (1987). Dating violence: A research review and comparison with spouse abuse.
Social Casework, 68(1), 16-23.

Cawood, R.L., & Heesacker, M. (2001). Construct validation of the Desired Loving Behaviors
Scale. Unpublished manuscript.

Clark, M. S., & Monin, J. K. (2006). Giving and receiving communal responsiveness as love. In
R. J. Sternberg & K. Weis (Eds.) The new psychology of love (pp. 200-221). New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.

Critelli, J. W., Myers, E. J., & Loos, V. E. (1986). The components of love: Romantic attraction
and sex role orientation. Journal ofPersonality, 54, 354-370.

Crooks, R. & Baur, K. (2002). Our sexuality (8th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Wadsworth.

Davis, K. E. (1985, February). Near and dear: Friendship and love compared. Psychology Today,
22-30.

Davis, K. E., & Todd, M. J. (1982). Friendship and love relationships. Advances in descriptive
psychology, 2, 79-122.

Dion, K. K., & Dion, K. L. (1996). Cultural perspectives on romantic love. Personal
Relationships, 3, 5-17.

Dion, K. K., & Dion, K. L. (2006). Individualism, collectivism, and the psychology of love. In R.
J. Sternberg & K. Weis (Eds.) The new psychology of love (pp. 298-312). New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.

Fehr, B. (1988). Prototype analysis of the concepts of love and commitment. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 557-579.

Fehr, B., & Russell, J. A. (1991). The concept of love viewed from a prototype perspective.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 425-438.

Fehr, B. (1994). Prototype-based assessment of laypeople's views of love. Personal
Relationships, 1, 309-331.

Forgas, J. P., & Dobosz, B. (1980). Dimensions of Romantic Involvement: Towards a taxonomy
of heterosexual relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43, 290-300.

Freud, S. (1955/1922). Certain neurotic mechanisms injealousy, paranoia, and homosexuality. In
Collected Papers (Vol. 2, pp. 235-140, 323). London: Hogarth.









Freud, S. (1955). Group psychology and the analysis of the ego. The standard edition of the
complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 18). London: Hogarth.

Fromm, E. (1956). The art of loving. New York: Harper.

Gervais, S. J., & Vescio, T. K. (in press). The origins and consequences of subtle sexism. In
Psychology ofPower. New York: Nova Science Publishers.

Gottman, J. (1979). Marital interaction: Experimental investigations. New York: Academic
Press.
Gottman, J. (1999). The marriage clinic. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Graham, J. W., Cumsille, P. E., & Elek-Fisk, E. (2003). Methods for handling missing data. In J.
A. Schinka, W. F. Velicer (Eds.) Handbook ofpsychology: Research methods in
psychology: Vol. 2 (pp. 87-114). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.

Graham, J. W., Taylor, B. J., Olchowski, A. E., & Cumsille, P. E. (2006). Planned missing data
designs in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 11, 323-343.

Grimm, L. G., Yarnold, P. R. (1995). Reading and understanding multivariate statistics.
Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Harvey, J. H., Wenzel, A., & Sprecher, S. (Eds.) (2004). The handbook of sexuality in close
relationships. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates Publishers.

Hatfield, E. (1988). Passionate and companionate love. In R. J. Sternberg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.),
The psychology of love (pp. 191-217). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1986). Measuring passionate love in intimate relationships. Journal
ofAdolescence, 9, 383-410.

Hatfield, E., Sprecher, S., Pillemer, J. T., Greenberger, D. (1988). Gender differences in what is
desired in the sexual relationship. Journal ofPsychology andHuman Sexuality, 1, 3-52.

Hatfield, E., & Walster, G. W. (1978). A new look at love. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524.

Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. (1986). A theory and method of love. Journal ofPersonality and
Social Psychology, 50, 392-402.

Heesacker, M., Smith, M., & Lawrence, A. (1998). The Desired Loving Behavior Scale. In C.M.
Davis, W. L. Yarber, R. Bauserman, G. Scheer, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of
sexuality-related measures (pp. 452-453). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.









Heesacker, M., Stanley, K. E., & Tiegs, T. J. (2004). Sex bias estimates ofinfidelity.
Unpublished Manuscript. University of Florida.

Heesacker, M., Tiegs, T. J., Lawrence, A. W., Smith, M. B., Cawood, R. L., Mejia-Millan, C. M.
(2003) Was Lord Byron right? An analysis of the magnitude and stability of sex
differences in romantic relationships. Unpublished manuscript. University of Florida.

Heesacker, M. Tiegs, T. J., LaBarge, D. C., Millan, C. M., Lawrence,
Jr., A. W., Smith, M. B., & Cawood, R. L. (2006, August). Desired and received loving
behaviors by men and women in romantic relationships. In D. Shepard (Chair), Men in
love. Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological
Association, New Orleans.

Heesacker M., Wester, S. R., Vogel, D. L., Wentzel, J. T., Mejia-Millan, C. M., & Goodholm,
Jr., C. R., (1999). Gender-based emotional stereotyping. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 46, 483-495.

Holmes, T.H., & Rahe, R.H. (1967). The social readjustment scale. Journal ofpsychosomatic
research, 11(2), 213-218.

Jackson, T., Chen, H., Guo, C., & Gao, X. (2006). Stories we love by: Conceptions of love
among couples from the People's Republic of China and the United States. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 446-464.

James, W. H. (1981). The honeymoon effect on marital coitus. The Journal of Sex Research, 17,
114-123.

Kingsberg, S. A. (2000). The psychological impact of aging on sexuality and relationships.
Journal of Women's Health and Gender-Based Medicine, 9, 33-3 8.
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B. & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male.
Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders.

Lasswell, T. E., & Lasswell, M. E. (1976). I love you but I'm not in love with you. Journal of
Marital and Family Therapy, 2, 211-224.

Lasswell, M., & Lobsenz, N. M. (1980). Styles of loving. New York: Ballantine.

Lee, J. A. (1973). Colors of love. Toronto: New Press.

Lee, J. A. (1988). Love-styles. In R. J. Sternberg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love
(pp. 38-67). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Levinger, G., Rands, M., & Talaber, R. (1977). The assessment of involvement and
rewardingness in close and casual pair relationships (National Science Foundation
Technical Report DK). Amherst: University of Massachusetts.









Long, L. L., Burnett. J. A., & Thomas, R. V. (2006). Sexuality counseling: An integrative
approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Mathes, E. W. (1980). Nine "colours" or types of romantic love. Psychological Reports, 47, 371-
376.

Marazziti, D. (2005). The neurobiology of love. Current Psychiatry Reviews, 1, 331-335.

Marston, P. J., Hecht, M. L., & Robers, T. (1987). True love ways: The subjective experience
and communication of romantic love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4,
387-407.

Mejia-Millan, C. M, & Heesacker, M., & Todd, B. (2006). Feeling loved, receiving desired
loving behaviors, and experiencing relationship satisfaction among unmarried collegians.
Manuscript in preparation.

Murstein, B. I. (1988). A taxonomy of love. In R. J. Sternberg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The
psychology of love (pp. 13-37). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

National Center for Health Statistics: Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of
Health and Human Services (2002). Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in
the United States. (DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 2002-1998). Hyattsville, MA: U.S.
Government Printing Office.

National Center for Health Statistics: Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of
Health and Human Services (2002). Bit ithl, Marriages, Divorces, and Detil,
Provisional Data for September 2001. (DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 2002-1120).
Hyattsville, MA: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Phelan, J., Link, B. G., Stueve, A., & Moore, R. E. (1995). Education, social liberalism, and
economic conservatism: Attitudes towards homeless people. American Sociological
Review, 60, 126-140.

Rosen-Grandon, J. R., Myers, J. E., & Hattie, J. A. (2004). The relationship between marital
characteristics, marital interaction processes, and marital satisfaction. The Journal of
Counseling and Development, 82, 58-68.

Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology,
16, 265-273.

Rubin, Z. (1973). Liking and loving: An invitation to social psychology. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, & Winston.

Rusbult, C. E., (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the
investment model. Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology, 16,172-186.









Rusbult, C.E. (1986). Predicting satisfaction and commitment in adult romantic involvements:
An assessment of the generalizability of the investment model. Social Psychology
Quarterly 49, 81-89.

Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The Investment Model Scale: Measuring
commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size.
Personal Relationships, 5, 357-391.

Samson, A.W. (1996). An experimental validation of the Desired Loving Behavior Scale.
Unpublished master's thesis, University of Florida.

Samson, J. M., Levy, J. J., Dupras, A., & Tessier, D. (1991). Coitus frequency among married
and cohabitating heterosexual adults: A survey in French-Canada. Journal ofFamily
Studies, Australia, 12, 103-109.

Schafer, J.L. (1999) NORM: Multiple imputation of incomplete multivariate data under a normal
model, version 2. Software for Windows 95/98/NT, available from
http://www.stat.psu.edu/j ls/misoftwa.html.

Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art.
Psychological Methods, 7, 147-177.

Schmitt, D. P. (2006). Evolutionary and cross-cultural perspectives on love: The influence of
gender, personality, and local ecology on emotional investment in romantic relationships.
In R. J. Sternberg & K. Weis (Eds.) The new psychology of love (pp. 249-273). New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Singelis, T., Choo, P., & Hatfield, E. (1995). Love schemas and romantic love. Journal of Social
Behavior and Personality, 10, 15-36.

Sprecher, S. (2002). Sexual satisfaction in premarital relationships: Associations with
satisfaction, love, commitment, and stability. Journal of Sex Research, 39, 190-196.

Sprecher, S. (2006). Sexuality in close relationships. In P. Noller & J. A. Feeney (Eds.) Close
relationships: Functions, forms and processes (pp.267-284). Hove, England: Psychology
press/Taylor and Francis (UK).

Steck, L., Levitan, D., McLane, D., & Kelley, H. (1982). Care, need, and conceptions of love.
Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 43, 481-491.

Steffen, J. J., McLaney, M. A., & Hustedt, T. K. (1982). The development of a measure of
limerence. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological
Association, Washington, D.C.

Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The triangle of love. New York: Basic Books.









Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Construct validation of a triangular love scale. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 27, 313-335.

Sternberg, R. J. (2006). A duplex theory of love. In R. J. Sternberg & K. Weis (Eds.) The new
psychology of love (pp. 184-199). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Sternberg, R. J. & Beall, A. E. (1991). How can we know what love is? An epistemological
analysis. In G. J. O. Fletcher & F. D. Fincham (Eds.) Cognition and close relationships
(pp. 257-278). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Sternberg, R. J., Hojjat, M., & Barnes, M. L. (2001). Empirical aspects of a theory of love as a
story. European Journal ofPersonality, 15, 1-20.

Sternberg, R. J., & Grajek, S. (1984). The nature of love. Journal ofPersonality and Social
Psychology, 47, 312-329.

Swensen, C. H., (1972). The behavior of love. In H. A. Otto (Ed.), Love today (pp. 86-101). New
York: Association Press.

Swensen, C. H., Nelson, M. K., Waner, J. & Dunlap, D. (1992). Scale of feelings and behavior of
love: Revised. In L. Vandecreek, S. Knapp, & T. L. Jackson (Eds.) Innovations in clinical
practice: A source book: Vol. 11 (pp. 303-314). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource
Press.

Tannen, D. (2007). You just don't understand: Women and men in conversation. New York:
Harper Paperbacks.

Thibaut, J.W., & Kelley, H.H. (1959). The socialpsychology of groups. New York: Wiley.

Tiegs, T. J., & Heesacker, M. (2005, August). But I'm different: Testing the accuracy of sex
stereotypes. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological
Association, Washington, DC.

Tiegs, T. J., Heesacker, M., Timothy U. Ketterson, T. U., Pekich, D. G., Rittman, M. R.,
Rosenbek, J. C., Stidham, B. S., & Gonzalez-Rothi, L. (2006). Coping by Stroke
Caregivers: Sex Similarities and Differences. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 13, 52-62.

Tiegs, T. J., Todd, B., Smith, M. B., Cawood, R. L., Samson, A. W., LaBarge, D., Perrin, P. B.,
Mejia-Millan, C. M., & Heesacker, M. (2008). The Desired Loving Behaviors Scale:
Validity and Reliability. Manuscript in Progress. University of Florida.

West, C. E. (2005). Clinical utility and validation of the Couple's Communicative Evaluation
Scale. Psychological Reports, 97, 599-622.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Tom Tiegs was born and raised in Minnesota, but he got to Florida as quickly as he

could. He received his undergraduate degree in psychology from the University of St.

Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota. He received his Master's degree in psychology from the

University of Florida and is completing this dissertation to receive his Ph.D. from that

same hallowed institution. He married Sarah Gervais and has since moved around the

country with her in order to complete their degrees together and to find actual jobs. They

are now moving to Nebraska, but they hope to one day return to the Sunshine State and

Gatorville.





PAGE 1

DESIRED LOVING BEHAVIORS ACROSS THE LIFE SPAN By TOM J TIEGS A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008 1

PAGE 2

2008 Tom J Tiegs 2

PAGE 3

To my love bug, Sarah. 3

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my wife, Sarah for everything that she does for me. I would also like to thank my friends and family for their support. I owe grat itude to my advisor and committee members Drs. Heesacker, Bluck, Perez, and Sheehan. I also want to thank John Graham of Penn State University for his timely advice on using imputat ion methods for missing data. Thanks to HP as well. 4

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........7 LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................................8 ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. .10 Desired Loving Behaviors Across The Life Span..................................................................10 Background.............................................................................................................................11 The Current Project............................................................................................................ .....15 Gender.............................................................................................................................15 Age..................................................................................................................................16 Relationship Length.........................................................................................................17 Children...........................................................................................................................17 Hypotheses Summary............................................................................................................. 17 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE........................................................................................19 Inclusion and Exclusion Crite ria in the Current Review........................................................20 Perspectives on Love..............................................................................................................21 Love as a Single Factor with Various Components........................................................22 Multifactor Approaches and Other Conceptualizations of Love.....................................37 Critical Review of the Literature............................................................................................42 Summary.................................................................................................................................43 3 METHODS...................................................................................................................... .......44 Phase 1....................................................................................................................................44 Participants......................................................................................................................44 Measures..........................................................................................................................45 Procedure.........................................................................................................................45 Phase 2....................................................................................................................................45 Participants......................................................................................................................45 Measures..........................................................................................................................47 Procedure.........................................................................................................................47 Data Analysis...................................................................................................................50 Hypothesis Testing..........................................................................................................50 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................... .........52 5

PAGE 6

Phase 1....................................................................................................................................52 Phase 2....................................................................................................................................52 Planned Missing Data Analysis.......................................................................................52 Factor Analysis................................................................................................................ 52 Cronbachs ....................................................................................................................53 Hypothesis Testing..........................................................................................................53 Ancillary Analyses..........................................................................................................55 5 DISCUSSION................................................................................................................... ......61 Phase 1 Love is Simple, not Easy, but Simple....................................................................61 Phase 2....................................................................................................................................61 Factor Analysis of the DLBS-2.......................................................................................61 Hypothesis Testing..........................................................................................................65 Ancillary Analyses..........................................................................................................67 Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions........................................................................69 Use of the DLBS-2.................................................................................................................73 Summary.................................................................................................................................73 APPENDIX A PHASE 1 ITEMS................................................................................................................ ....75 B DLBS-2 FACTORS AND ITEMS.........................................................................................78 REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................80 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.........................................................................................................87 6

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES Table page Table 3-1 Diagram of Planned Missing Data Design...........................................................51 Table 4-1 Correlations of the Factors and the Total Scale....................................................57 Table 4-2 Means and Standard Devi ations of significant t -tests and ANOVAs.................58 7

PAGE 8

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page Figure 4-1 Sample histograms demonstrating simila rities in Observed and Imputed data....59 Figure 4-2 Scree Plot of Factor Analysis Showing eigenvalues and Component Numbers........................................................................................................................ .....60 8

PAGE 9

Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School Of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy DESIRED LOVING BEHAVIORS ACROSS THE LIFE SPAN By Tom J. Tiegs December 2008 Chair: Martin Heesacker Major: Counseling Psychology Previous research on college-aged participants yielded a consistent four-factor structure describing participants desires in their romantic relationships. The curre nt project set out to examine desired loving behaviors in romantic rela tionships in a non-collegiate sample. In order to understand what non-collegians want in order to feel loved, participants completed a freeresponse questionnaire regarding what actions elicit feelings of love. A second sample of participants then rated those it ems in the context of their own relationships. The responses were then factor analyzed to produce a coherent fact or structure. A 46-item scale containing five factors emerged and shows what behaviors peop le reportedly desire to feel loved by their romantic partners. The factors are labeled: Re lationship Support, Scripting, Personal Support, Respect, and Sex. The items and factors were then tested for differences in loving desires, as a function of seven individual differences. Significant effect s were found as a function of differences in participant gender, age, parent hood status, work status, and the length of the relationship. No differences were found as a function of income. 9

PAGE 10

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Desired Loving Behaviors Across The Life Span There are essentially two schools of thought about the nature of the interpersonal behaviors that create satisfying romantic relationships (Abelson, 1963). The first is the school of cold (or dispassionate) cognition, in which sati sfying romantic relationships result from the conclusion that one is getting back as much or mo re than one is giving to a relationship or, said somewhat differently, that one and ones partner are giving similarly to each other and to the relationship. The second is the school of hot (affectively imbued) cognition. The hot cognition school posits that the affective meaning one assign s to the behaviors of a romantic partner are critical in determining whether those behavior s do or do not result in satisfaction with the relationship. If the behaviors mean one is lo ved, satisfaction increases If not, satisfaction decreases. However, evidence supports both hot and cold approaches and reveals that each approach contributes independent and substantial vari ance to the prediction of relationship satisfaction. To date, most of this work and vi rtually all of the hot cognition work has been conducted on collegians. The purpose of the present investigation is to ex amine the validity of a common measure of these romantic relationshiprelevant hot cognitions, namely the Desired Loving Behavior Scale (DLBS; Heesacker, Sm ith, & Lawrence, 1998) with a more diverse sample and to assess whether hot cognitions contribution to relationship satisfaction of collegians would be mirrored in the responses of a dults not currently enroll ed in college courses. The current project also examined what factors influence desires in romantic relationships (e.g., relationship length, marita l status, or children). 10

PAGE 11

Background Intimate relationships are important to huma n beings. The signs of the quest for love abound. For example, from September 2000 to Se ptember 2001 there were 2.4 million marriages in the United States alone (National Vital St atistics Report, Vol. 50, No. 8, May 24, 2002). Love relationships are central to the live s of many people. Illust rative of this is the fact that six of the top fifteen most stress induci ng items on the social readjustme nt scale (Holmes & Rahe, 1967) concern intimate relationships. It is clear that relationships ar e important, but it is also no secret that occasionally people struggle to maintain healthy relatio nships; that the sea of love is prone to a squall from time to time. In a report issued by the Center for Diseas e Control within five y ears a marriage has a 20% probability of ending in divorce. By ten years of marriage that number jumps to 33% (Vital and Health Statistics, Series 23, Nu mber 22, 2002). Another indication of stormy relationships is rampant infidelity. By their very nature, statistics on extramarital affairs are hard to ascertain, but depending on the sample, cohort, and definition of infidelity, rates of infidelity vary from approximately 25% of committed experiencing infi delity to more than 50% (Blow & Hartnett, 2005; Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948). Relationship difficulties are not limited to ma rried couples. Heesacker, Stanley, and Tiegs (2004) found similar rates of infidelity in dati ng relationships. Accordi ng to Carlson (1987) 36% of college students will experien ce some form of abuse in their dating relationships. Infidelity and abuse represent relationships at their wo rst, but what about when people are simply dissatisfied with their partners and want to improve their relati onships? Three primary theories have attempted to articulate the factors that nurtu re and sustain relationships as well as those that hurt and end relationships. A brief review of thes e theories will be presented next. Understanding these theories is vital to understanding the rationale for the proposed research. 11

PAGE 12

Thibaut and Kelley (1959) proposed social excha nge theory. Social exchange theory posits a cost-benefit analysis of the re lationship as central to relationship satisfaction. An individual considers the rewards and costs of being in a particular rela tionship, as opposed to other alternatives. This model predicts that as the re wards increase and costs decrease a person will be more satisfied and place a higher value on the relationship. In equity theory, Adams (1965) built on social exchange theory, ta king into account the extent to which each partner benefits from the relationship. Equity theory suggests that it is possible that one partner benefits too much while the other partne r benefits too little from the relationship. Both partners will become dissatisfi ed in this situation; so, for a couple to be satisfied, equity of perceived of costs and benefits is needed. Rusbults Investment Model (1980, 1986, 1998) is also related to Thibaut and Kelleys social exchange theory. Rusbult created the Investment Model Scale to measure commitment level, investment size, and quali ty of alternatives, as well as relational satisfaction. The theory posits that satisfied relationships involve high rewards and low cost s. The investment model also suggests that commitment increases as partners invest more res ources in the relationship making other alternatives less attractive. What these theories share is a perspective on relationship satisfacti on that Abelson (1963) would likely characterize as cold cognition. Abelson was the first scholar to publish work distinguishing between cold and hot cognition. Cold cognition is defined as relatively devoid of affective intensity, characterized primarily by logi c and facts, whereas ho t cognition is relatively saturated with affect. Abelsons distinction sugges ts that a theory that focuses on hot instead of on cold cognition may provide a complementary understanding of the sources of relationship satisfaction, beyond the variance accounted for by the cold-cognition models. One such affect12

PAGE 13

based, hot cognition model is Heesackers desire d loving behavior theory (Heesacker, Smith, & Lawrence, 1998; Mejia-Millan, Heesacker, & Todd, 2006). The desired loving behavior theo ry proposes that individuals want to feel loved by their romantic partners; that specific actions by the partner signal the degree to which people feel loved, and that people differ in the amount and type of behavior they desire in order to feel loved. According to this theory, the extent to which their partner provides these desired loving behaviors affects feelings of being loved and co nsequently relational sa tisfaction. Heesacker and colleagues created the Desired Loving Behaviors Scale (DLBS; Heesacker et al., 1998) to test the theory. Heesacker et al. developed the DLBS to examine what actions romantic partners desired from one another in order to feel lo ved. The DLBS has been used to assess for discrepancies between what peopl e desire and what they receive from their romantic love partner. The DLBS is a 39-item survey that asse sses the extent to which participants want and receive various behaviors in four domain s including Sex, Scripting (communication), Relationship Support, and Caring Actions. The DLBS was found to be valid and reliable (Tiegs et al., 2008). The scale allows for the calculation of a score that assesses the degree of discrepancy between what desi red loving behaviors one person wants and what that person reports receiving from the partner. The magnitude of this discrepancy is inversely related to satisfaction (Mejia-Millan et al., 2006). Participants in current relationships reported lower discrepancy scores than those in failed relationships. Furthermore, Mejia-Millan et al. found that the discrepancies between desired and receiv ed loving behaviors si gnificantly predicted relationship satisfaction above and beyond varian ce accounted for by the equity and investment models. They also found that the degree to which the received behavior was believed to represent 13

PAGE 14

feeling loved consequently determ ined the importance of the behavi or in influencing relationship satisfaction, thus supporting a hot cognition perspective. Not only are these discrepancies important, rese arch indicates that th ey are also large. Across three studies (Samson, 1996; Cawood & Heesacker, 2001; & Mejia -Millan et al., 2006) the average discrepancy ranged from .8 to 1.2 (on a 5-point scale) Cohen (1988) would characterize the effect sizes of desired-rece ived loving behavior di screpancies as large (Heesacker et al., 2003). Beyond assessing relationship sati sfaction, the DLBS has been found to be useful in examining gender similarities and differences, ge nder stereotypes, and be liefs about emotions. Heesacker et al. (2003) used the DLBS to demonstrate that men and women are quite similar in what they desire in romantic relationships, a finding that contradicts commonly held gender stereotypes. Other research using the DLBS rev ealed that participants held inaccurate and overexaggerated beliefs about what men and women desire in romantic re lationships (Tiegs & Heesacker, 2005). Ongoing research using the DLBS includes projects on gender similarities, gender roles, and relationship satisfaction. The DLBS has also been suggested for use in couples counseling (Heesacker, Smith, & La wrence, 1998). In order to ra ise awareness a nd facilitate discussion, both members of the couple can comple te the DLBS to help delineate what their individual desires are and where their desires are and are not being fulfilled in the relationship. All of these projects show the utility a nd broad applicability of the Desired Loving Behavior Scale in understanding relationship satisfaction, gender similarities and differences, gender roles and stereotypes, and gendered emotions. To date, however, the DLBS has only been normed on college-aged participants (i.e., appr oximately 18-22 years old). While the scale 14

PAGE 15

clearly has been useful in th e college population, romantic rela tionships extend beyond those in college. The Current Project There are a number of factor s that may influence what pe ople desire from romantic partners in order to feel loved. The current proj ect used two phases two examines these desires. Phase 1 created a list of items provided by participan ts of what they desire in order to feel loved in their relationships. Phase 2 then factor analyz ed those items and used the resulting factors to examine differences in the sample on various characteristics including age, the presence of children, SES, relationship durati on, marital status, career status, and culture, among others. All of which likely impact desired behaviors. Each of these factors will be discussed briefly in context of relationships and relationship satisfaction. Some desired loving behaviors may be relevant across groups whereas others may be re levant to just some groups. The four factors seem to represent core needs in relationships. It is hypothesize d that these factors will be replicated in non-collegiate samples. However, it is likely that there may be other factors as well (e.g., related to children or work status) in the no n-collegiate sample that will vary compared to responses of collegians. The hypotheses associated with each of these aspects will be discussed in the following sections. Gender Previous research has shown a consistent e ffect wherein women desire more relationship support than do men (Heesacker et al., 2003, 2006). Common stereotypes s uggest that men may desire more sex and women may desire more communication (scripting) but there is mixed support for these notions about men and women (Heesacker, Wester, Vogel, Wentzel, MejiaMillan, & Goodholm, 1999; Canary & Emmers-Som mer, 1997; Allgeier & Royster, 1991). One consistent gender difference is that women desire more re lationship support than do men 15

PAGE 16

(Heesacker et al., 2006). Research has also shown a consistent difference in desires for sex in men and women (e.g., Hatfield, Sprecher, Pillemer, & Greenberger, 1988; Sprecher, 2002). It is hypothesized that women in the current study will report more desires than men on the relationship support subscale of the DLBS and th at men will desire more sex than women. No other differences are predicted regarding gender. Age As people age and their life circumstances ch ange, it is quite likely that their needs and desires in romantic relationships will also change to reflect th eir current life demands. Research suggests that sexual behaviors chan ge as people grow older. Thes e changes are associated with many factors including physiological changes, loss of partners, and changes in living arrangements among other factors (Long, Burnett, & Thomas, 2006). The advent of Viagra and other drugs to treat erectile dysfunction, coupled with new attitudes towa rds sexuality in older adults, is changing the stereotype of older adults as asexual (Kingsberg, 2000; Crooks & Bauer, 2002). Even with this change in be liefs about of sexual attitudes a nd behaviors in older adults it is hypothesized that younger adults will report more sexual desires and that there will be an inverse correlation between age and reported desires on the sex subscale of the DLBS. As people age, it is also likely that thei r desires for caring actions may change. The necessity to provide informal, at-home health care is increasing as the population ages (Tiegs et al., 2006). Many people will require this type of care, which is frequently provided by spouses. While this care is often needed for the patien ts survival and well-being, it certainly is an expression of love. There are no predictions about any differences on the relationship support or scripting subscales of the DLBS associated directly with age. 16

PAGE 17

Relationship Length Studies (e.g., James, 1981; Samson, Levy, Dupras, & Tessier, 1991, Brewis & Meyer, 2005) have indicated that sexual behavior decreases significantly after the fi rst or second year of marriage. Research examining communication sugge sts that some people have more difficulty communicating as the length of their relationship increases (Wes t, 2005). Rosen-Grandon, Myers, and Hattie (2004) compared short duratio n marriages against longer duration marriages and found that expression of affect, sex, and othe r marital characteristics (including romance and support, among others) were not significant predic tors of relationship sa tisfaction in the longer marriages whereas they were in shorter marri ages. Accordingly, an inverse correlation is hypothesized between desires on the sex, script ing, caring actions, and relationship support subscales of the DLBS a nd length of relationship. Children The presence of children has been shown to decrease the level of sexual activity in romantic relationships (James, 1981). The absenc e of children has also been linked in some couples with greater expression of affect, and cohesion and they may have more time to give to the relationship in such activiti es as talking and supporting one another (Callan, 1984). For the current project it is hypothesized that couples without children will desire more relationship support, scripting, and sex as indicated by their DLBS scores. No group differences are predicted in the level of caring actions, but the items may di ffer in parents versus those without children on the caring actions subscale. That is, people with children will desire caring actions associated with child rearing whereas those without children will not. Hypotheses Summary To summarize, the hypotheses for th e current project are as follows: 17

PAGE 18

1) Hypothesis 1 the factor structure of the new DLBS will match the factor structure of the original DLBS. 2) Hypothesis 2 women will desire more relationship support than men in order to feel loved. 3) Hypothesis 3 men will desire more sex than women in order to feel loved. 4) Hypothesis 4 there will be an inverse correl ation between age and desire for sex as it relates to feeling loved. 5) Hypothesis 5 there will be an inverse correl ation between rela tionship length and all DLBS factors. 6) Hypothesis 6 couples without children will desire more relationship support, scripting, and sex in order to feel loved than couples with children. 18

PAGE 19

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Love is a many splendored thing. The Four Aces Love is complex. Much has been written over the years to understand and define love (e.g., Beall & Sternberg, 1995). A search of the PsycIn fo database for the word love resulted in nearly 14,000 citations. Inherent in the complexity of love are components over which individuals have some agency a nd other aspects that are out of the sphere of an individuals influence. For example, one can control and change how often he or she talks or has sex with his or her partner. A person cannot as easily decide to alter ones neurobiology for the benefit of the relationship (Marazziti, 2005). Ot her components fall somewhere between no agency and total agency (e.g., attachment style, Bowlby, 1982; culture, Dion & Dion, 2006). Beall and Sternberg (1995) defined love as an idea th at includes information about (a ), the beloved, (b), the thoughts that accompany love, (c), the feelings that acco mpany love, and (d) the ac tions, or the relations between the lover and the beloved (pp.433-434) It is worthwhile knowing, understanding, and defining all of these aspects of romantic love. However, for the purpose of this review I will focus on the actions and relations between the love r and the beloved; that is, the more concrete, behavioral aspects of love that people can theore tically change in themselves and in the ways they behave. The current chapter will review relationship models in order to describe the components of love with a focus on the behavioral aspects in each model/theory. The review will describe inclusion and exclusion criteria, it will discuss approaches to love as a single factor as well as multifactor approaches to love to better understand the behaviors of love. 19

PAGE 20

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria in the Current Review There are many conceptualizations, definitions, and theoretical approaches to understanding love including: love as attachme nt (Bowlby, 1982; Hazan & Shaver, 1987), love as motivation (Aron & Aron, 1996), and love as so cial construction (Dio n & Dion, 1996) just to name a few. In the current review I chose to focus on taxonomies of love with a focus on behavioral components. Models of romantic relationshi ps and relationship research we re included in or excluded from the review based on a few criteria. First, they had to be based on empirical approaches to love and discussed/reviewed in the empirical li terature. This criteri on excluded from review unsubstantiated popular cultural theories of love and even we ll-meaning but unsubstantiated clinical theories of love (e .g., Freud, 1922, 1955 as cited in Sternberg and Beall, 1991). Second, they had to focus on romantic relationships as opposed to other types of interpersonal relationships (e.g., parental, sib ling, friend relationships). Third, they needed to include a discussion of love, as opposed to just relationshi p satisfaction or enhancement. This criterion precluded a few well known relationship models (e.g., Thibaut & Kelley, 1959; Rusbult, 1998) because of their exclusion of a discussion of love. Also, the research needed to focus on love rather than include love as a byproduct of the model or research. For example, exchange and equity theories are relationship theories that consider love, if at all, as a byproduct of relationship satisfaction. Fourth, the research ha d to present or test a model of love as a whole concept rather than simply looking at particular aspects or correlates of love relationships. I wanted to examine relationship models and theories rather than all available resear ch on the topic of behaviors in love. There is a great deal of good research available on these di fferent specific behaviors (e.g., Harvey, Wenzel, & Sprecher, 2004; Sprecher, 20 06), but I wanted to focus on general love models. I chose to focus on models that describe what love consists of rather than on research 20

PAGE 21

explaining how to get love, keep it or lose it. Fifth, I also exclude d discussions of theories that do not identify specific behaviors one can engage in, things such as attachment style (e.g., Hazan & Shaver, 1987), culture (e.g., Dion & Dion, 2006) or love as self-e xpansion (Aron & Aron, 1996). These theories were excluded from the di scussion because they do not identify specific behaviors one can engage fall with in the realm of ones control, but do not repr esent specific behaviors that one can do to increase love in their relationship. Search terms for the current review included: components of love, features of love, love theory, relationship theory and love, what is love, conceptions of love, taxonomy of love, love factors. The current chapter will review theories a nd literature from two broad perspectives on love: love as a single factor w ith many components and the perspect ive that love has many types. The perspectives will be defined and theories and research from each approach will be reviewed for how they explain behavioral as pects of love. Then shortcomings in this literature, as it relates to the current project, will be identified. Perspectives on Love Two main perspectives exist within the em pirical approaches to love (Murstein, 1988; Berscheid, 1988). The first suggests that love is a single factor contai ning multiple components. The second suggests that there are many types of love each with its own components (e.g., Lee, 1973; Hatfield, 1988). In the current review the focus is not on the different types of romantic love per se (I, among others, believe that the single factor approach has more validity; e.g., Sternberg & Grajek, 1984; Murstein, 1988) but the multifactor approaches do address some behavioral components of love not addressed by the single-factor ap proaches. Thus theories from each approach will be discussed for what they add to the understanding of behaviors related to love. 21

PAGE 22

Love as a Single Factor with Various Components Theories and research that conceptualize love as a single factor with multiple sub-factors will be reviewed next. The focus will be on the ov ert actions that demonstrate the components or sub-factors of love. Heesacker, Smith, & Lawrence (1998) created the Desired Loving Behavior Scale (DLBS) to examine what behaviors people wanted in order to feel loved in their romantic relationships. The DLBS was created by explicitly asking participants what actio ns and behaviors they wanted their partners to do or say in order to feel loved. The results of which yielded four factors, Relationship Support, Scripting, Caring Actions, and Sex. Heesacker, et al. (1998) found that college students frequently desi red actions that made them f eel that their partners were committed to the relationship and to improving the relationship. They called this factor Relationship Support. Sample items from the Re lationship Support scale include creating a feeling of security between us and accept my imperfections. College students also reported that they wanted to hear certain sentences or phrases said to them by their partners to feel loved. These items included say to me, you mean so mu ch to me and say to me, Ill always love you. They also desired their partners exhibit ca ring actions toward them, such as helping with the laundry or leaving a note on th eir car. Finally, the participants in Heesacker et al.s research wanted sexual behaviors in order to feel loved by their partners. In a similar research paradigm Critelli, My ers, and Loos (1986) asked couples to rate items about the type of love they experienced Critelli et al. based their work on love theories proposed by Erich Fromm and by feminist theor y. One-hundred twenty three heterosexual dating dyads completed the protocol (246 people). Particip ants varied in age from 18-28 years old with a relationship length ranging from two weeks to five years. Participants in this research were instructed to rate the extent to which they ag reed or disagreed with love items provided by the 22

PAGE 23

researchers. Participants also each wrote a love letter regarding their current relationship, which was then evaluated for love-related themes. The researchers employed both top-down and bottom-up approaches. Five factors emerged fr om their research: Romantic Dependency, Communicative Intimacy, Physical Arousal, Respect and Romantic Compatibility. Pertinent to the current review are the factors of Co mmunicative Intimacy (being able to openly communicate with ones partner), Physical Arous al (attraction and sex related items), and Respect (being respectful of ones partner). Less pertinent are the factors of Romantic Dependency and Romantic Compatibility. Romantic Dependency is more about feeling reliant on ones partner and Romantic Compatibility is about interpersonal sim ilarities. Both factors reflect beliefs held by partners ra ther than actions one can engage in to improve the relationship. Communicating, physical expressions of love, and showing respect all emerged as behavioral components of love. These factors ar e present in many models of love. Marston, Hecht, and Robers (1987) complete d research along these same lines, in many ways similar to the work done with the DLBS. They set out to understand how people communicate love to their partners. In two studi es, Marston et al. compiled a list of factors describing what actions people use to communicate love. Sevent y-six participants completed Study 1 of which 50% were men. Ages of the part icipants ranged from 21 to 54 years old. Study 1 gathered information about how the participants understand love. Participants were then asked how they communicated to and received love from their partners. Cluster an alysis of participant responses yielded six factors: Collaborativ e Love (supporting each other through intensified emotional experiences), Active L ove (doing things together and discussing emotions), Secure Love (talking about intimate topics and doing th ings for each other), Intuitive Love (non-verbal communication of love), Committed Love (talking about where the relationship is going in the 23

PAGE 24

future), and Traditional Romantic Love (say ing I love you and being romantic). A follow-up study used a self-categorization cl uster analysis to examine the fa ctors created in Study 1. Three samples were used in Study 2. The first sample including 29 participants (72% of whom were female) that ranged in age from 21-62 years. Th e second and third sample consisted of 94 (78% were female) and 62 (52% were female) particip ants that had an average age of 20.5 years. Samples 2 and 3 consisted of undergraduate studen ts. Participants from all three samples first responded to the items created in Study 1 and were then instructed to think about their relationships and categorize themselves in one or more of the proposed factors. Study 2 yielded slightly different categories. Four of the six original factors remained (Active Love, Collaborative Love, Committed Love, and Intuitiv e Love). The Traditional Romantic Love factor appeared to split into two categories: Expressive Love (traditional communications of love) and items that remained from the original cluster analysis, which the authors again named Traditional Romantic Love. The Secure Love factor received no support in Study 2 and was dropped. However, three new factors emerged: phys ical contact as a way of both communicating and feeling love and togetherne ss as a way of feeling love. The items and factors produced by Marston, Hecht, and Robers (1987) in many ways mirror those produced in the DLBS research. Ma rston and colleagues set out to understand and classify the ways that people send and receive love. The behaviors that they found associated with communicating love matched closely with it ems in the original DLBS. Marston et al. took their work a step further and made the leap to classifying types of love based on these communication styles. They achieved varying degrees of success in labeling peoples experiences. Even so, their categories shed mu ch light on concrete-behavioral components of how people experience love ranging from physical closeness to simply saying I love you. 24

PAGE 25

Rubin (1970, 1973) also took a factor-analytic approach to understa nding love. Rubin set out to create a love scale that differentiated li king from loving. He created an item set covering both liking and loving based on previous writings on the nature of love (i.e., Freud, 1955 as cited in Rubin, 1970; Fromm, 1956). Fr om there Rubin asked particip ants (158 heterosexual dating couples enrolled at a large Midw estern university) to separate items into love and liking categories. Seventy items were retained and then rated by students in context of a romantic or a platonic relationship. Two scales, one for liking and one for loving, were created based on the students responses. Each scale had 13 items. Ru bin found that one large factor emerged on the loving scale, representing a mix of behaviors and concepts. Exampl es of such behaviors include confiding in their partners, doing things for one another, caring for the other, forgiving their partners, being possessive of one another, and cheering up each other wh en feeling down. Rubin also found a correlation between liking and lovin g. Not unexpectedly, he found that partners in love also reported liking one another. Rubin also examined gazing behavior and found that partners in love spent more time looking at each other, which he proffe red as an example of exclusiveness and of absorption in the relationship. Based on this work, Rubin suggested that love consists of three components, affiliative/ dependency needs, predisposition to help ones partner, and exclusiveness or absorption in the relationship. Inhere nt in these structures are the behaviors of communication, being faithful (fidel ity), caring for one another, self-sacrificing, forgiveness, and simply looking at each other. Additionally, the correlation between loving and liking scales suggest that there is a component of love that involves behaviors associated with friendship, such as respecting, trusting, and being confident in one another. Steck, Levitan, McLane, and Kelley (1982) reviewed and revised Rubins theory to emphasize the importance of caring and needing in the conceptualization of love. Using some of 25

PAGE 26

Rubins Love Scale items and some of their ow n items, Across five studies involving 133 male and 199 female undergraduate students enrolled at a large Southwestern university, Steck et al. found evidence to support their claim that caring for ones partner is a mo re central component of love than is needing ones partner. They also found that need is more associated with attraction than is caring. They s uggested that caring is a more cen tral concept to love than is need. However, the authors stre ssed that both aspects, care and need, are important to relationships particularly at different stages. In the early st ages of relationships, need may be more important as it helps facili tate attraction, whereas later in relationships care may take on a more central role. Sample items assessing care and need include I feel concerned for ____s well-being (care) and I want to f eel that ____ is a pa rt of me (need). Like Rubin (1970), Davis and Todd (1982; see also Davis, 1985) sought to distinguish between love relationships and friendships. They said that friendships consist of the following factors: enjoyment, acceptance, respect, mutu al assistance, confiding, understanding, and spontaneity. They proposed that l ove relationships had all of the factors of friendships but that they also consisted of what they called a passion cluster and a caring clus ter. The passion cluster includes fascination (attending to the lover above other things), exclusiveness (commitment and fidelity), and sexual desire. The caring cluster includes giving the utmost and being an advocate for ones partner. Across three studies involving 143 participants (most of whom were college students) they found that the model was able to distinguish between lovers and close friends, although they found that friends and lovers were quite similar in their caring behaviors. Predictably, they found that the passion cluster wa s the best predictor in differentiating friends from lovers. Again, the behaviors of passion and car ing appear central to th e conceptualization of love. 26

PAGE 27

Forgas and Dobosz (1980) created a taxonomy of love and romantic involvement. They had participants (61 male and 68 female undergraduate students) write out lis ts of different types of romantic relationships. A se parate sample then sorted those relationship types into homogenous categories of their own making. Par ticipants were encouraged to decide for themselves into which categories the relationships should be placed. Participants then rated the relationships in each category fo r similarity to the others in the same category. Forgas and Dobosz then completed a multidimensional scalin g matrix analysis that yielded a threedimensional solution. This solution characterized components of love relationships. They found that relationships in their list va ried on the dimensions of desira bility, love and commitment, and sexuality. The dimension of desirability includes how much each partner wants to be in the relationship. For example, people who got married simply because they got pregnant rated low in relationship desirability whereas couples that da ted for a long time and married were rated as high in desirability, because being in the re lationship was evidently desirable. The second dimension, love and commitment, reflects the perm anency of the relationship. One-night stands were rated as being low in love and commitment and long-term marriages were rated high on this dimension. The last dimension of loving rela tionships described by Forgas and Dobosz was sexuality. Couples that engage in frequent sexua l behavior and physical c ontact would score high on this dimension. Forgas and Dobosz found that a ll relationships containe d various levels of these dimensions. In loving relationships, couples will experience some desire to be in the relationship, a sense of commitment to th e relationship, and sexual contact within the relationship. Sternberg and Grajek (1984) compared three structural models of the nature of love. Borrowing from theories of intell igence, Sternberg and Grajek test ed whether love was a single, 27

PAGE 28

undifferentiated factor (that is, Spearmanian in nature), comprised of many overlapping bonds (that is, Thomsonian in nature), or a set of severa l primary factors (that is, Thurstonian in nature). Thirty-five men and 50 women co mpleted a love history and ma ny love instruments including the Limerence Scale (Steffen, McLaney, & Hust edt, 1982), the Lasswell-Hatkoff Love Scale (Lasswell & Lobsenz, 1980), items from the Liki ng and Love Scales (Rubin, 1970), and items from Levingers scale of interpersonal involvement (Levinger, Rands, & Talaber, 1977) as well as other measures of personality and functioning. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 70 years and the average age was 32 years old. Factor an alyses were run on the participants responses. Results suggested that love fits best within a Thomsonian model, wherein there is a single strong general factor followed by other we aker factors. Sternberg and Gr ajek posited that the general factor consists of the following behavioral aspects: (a) deep understanding of each other, (b) sharing of ideas and information, (c) sharing of deeply personal ideas and feelings, (d) receipt and provision of emotional support to the other, (e) personal growth throug h the relationship and helping of the other in his or her personal growth, (f) giving help to the other, (g) making the other feel needed and needing the other, (h) givi ng and receiving of affec tion in the relationship (pp. 327). In later research, Sternberg (1988, 1997, 2006) described three components of love in his relationship model. Intimacy, passion, and commitme nt constitute the three parts of Sternbergs triangular model of love. Intimacy occurs, accord ing to Sternberg, when couples share personal information about themselves. Passion, according to Sternberg, is the sexual desire felt within the relationship. Commitment, in his view, is a cognitive component wherein individuals in the relationship make conscious decision s to be in love and to stay in the relationship. Each of these three components of love includes behavioral as pects. Intimacy is increased when partners are 28

PAGE 29

vulnerable with each other and acce pting of the other person. By talking and sharing details of their lives couples can increase the amount of intimacy in th eir relationship and increase this aspect of love. Other behaviors that increase intimacy are working to bring out each others strengths and helping to overcome weaknesses, obse rving the needs of one another, being gentle and kind, and making their partner feel special (Sternberg & Beall, 1991). Couples can increase the amount of passionate love they experience by engaging in sexual behavior. Individuals have the choice to be committed to the relationship and can behave accordingly (i.e., by maintaining fidelity in the relationship). Sternberg then created classifications of love based on the presence of one or more of the component s. For example, if all three components are present, couples experience what Sternberg calls Co nsummate Lovea full, complete type of love. However, if one or two aspects of love are missing, couples can work to increase that piece in their relationship to attain Consummate Love. Sternbe rg suggested if none of the three pieces is present then there is not love at alla relationship state that he called non-love. Baumeister and Bratslavsky ( 1999) provided some theoretical support for the components of passion and intimacy. They found that these two aspects were highly correlated and that passion appears to increase with increases in intimacy, again suggesting that the two pieces are very much related. Their findings also suggest that couples hoping to in crease passion can raise the level of intimacy in their relationships; that by sharing more of themselv es and their lives that they may be able to experience greater passion. Sternberg (2006) also proposed what he called a sub-theory of love. He described that the components of love (intimacy, passion, commitme nt) come out of the stories we construct around love. The stories we have regarding love are multiple and range from simple to complex, but all of them help us to conceptualize love and our love relationships. This theory states that as 29

PAGE 30

people interact with their environm ents they create the stories that influence how they perceive love and how they act in their loving relations hips. Also, he proposed that people have some agency over stories to which they attend and to ward which they devote energy, although there is also an unconscious, automatic process associated with story construction as well. Sternberg said that people often dont even reali ze that they have a love story or that their love story may be very different from the stories of others. He also said that problems ar ise when individuals are unable to live up to their own love stories; that they sometimes dont have the awareness that the stories are constructed and therefore can be reconstructed Research on this theory shows that relationships are more likely to succeed when partners have sim ilar love stories. Although he noted that the number of love stories is poten tially limitless, Sternberg, Hojjat, and Barnes (2001) found common themes in the love storie s reported by participan ts. One-hundred five undergraduate participants (55 wo men, 50 men) ranging in age from 17 to 26 completed the love stories scale. Examples of comm on love stories include those enti tled: Love is Art (love of a partner that is beautiful and aesthetically pleasing), Cookbook Love (following a recipe for love by doing the right things at the right time makes the relationshi p more likely to succeed), and Love is Travel (love is an adve nture and a journey). Sternberg st ated that the stories serve as complex scripts for how we comprehend and behave in our relationships. Peoples love stories, according to Sternberg, are both causes of behavi or and affected by behavior. The stories also vary in salience based on individual and situational differences. Research on the love stories endorsed by participants found that maladaptive stories correlated w ith problems in relationships. However, the research did not find an increase in relationship satisfac tion based on endorsement of adaptive or positive love stor ies. Potentially, people can increas e self-awareness of their love stories and can change them to reduce relatio nship dissatisfaction a nd increase relationship 30

PAGE 31

satisfaction. Sternberg suggested th at our love stories are simila r to automatic thoughts seen in cognitive behavioral theori es. Individuals can challeng e their automatic thoughts and consequently can change how they behave in relationship. The reverse can also hold true. People can alter how they act in their relationships and in doing so can reconstruct their love stories. Although, research by Jackson, Chen, Guo, and Ga o (2006) suggested that the love stories people tell are highly infl uenced by their culture. Fehr (1988) asked participants (103 women and 37 men) to list the features of love and commitment. They produced 68 common attributes of love and 118 attributes for commitment. The top five items (as measured by the percentage of participants listing that item) for love are: caring, happiness, wanting to be with the othe r, friendship, and feeling free to talk about anything. The top five items (as measured by the pe rcentage of participants listing that item) for commitment are: perseverance, responsibility, living up to your word, devotion, and faithfulness. A second set of participants (111 female and 56 male undergraduate students) then rated the centrality of each item to its corresponding componentlove or commitment. Trust was the most central item to love. Caring, honesty, friendship, and respect make up the top five most central items to love. Loyalty, responsibility, living up to your word, faithfulness, and trust comprise the top five most central items to commit ment. Fehr used these data to create what she called prototypes of love and commitment. She wanted to understand the c ontent and structure of the concepts of love and commitment. Again, many aspects of her love prototypes involve concrete actions (e.g., caring for each other, living up to your wo rd, talking openly, sacrificing for the other person). This research further demonstr ates the concrete nature of certain aspects of love (see also Fehr & Russell, 1991; Fehr, 1994). 31

PAGE 32

Aron and Westbay (1996) examined the work of Fehr (1988) and conf irmed a three-factor prototype structure of love. Aron and Westbay instructed participants (168 undergraduate students) to rate items on their centrality to love (items were take n from Fehr, 1988). An exploratory factor analysis of their responses yielded three fact ors, which they labeled Passion, Intimacy, and Commitment. Participants (253 un dergraduate students) completed a follow-up study using a confirmatory factor analysis. Results of the confirma tory factor analysis supported the three-factor solution. Sample items from each component include: gazing at each other, physical attraction (Passion); feel ing free to talk about anythin g, being supportive (Intimacy); putting the other first, missing the other when away (Commitment). This research supports Sternbergs (1988) model of love using a factor-analytic approach. As previously stated, couples can use this knowledge and knowledge of their own relationships to make behavioral changes to increase the love they experien ce with one another. With familiarity of the individual items on each scale couples can concretely work to improve each particular component. For example, they can gaze at each other more often to increa se passion or they can support one another by communicating to develop more intimacy. Gottman (1979, 1999) has done extensive work studying relationships and relationship patterns. He studied a wide vari ety of participants across many different age groups. He and his colleagues have created an intricate model of relationships, which includes behavioral components. Gottman called his theory for relatio nships the The sound marital house: a theory of marriage. His theory focuses on well-being in marriages, but can also be generalized to other types of romantic relationships. Gottman proposed that there are two required components to any relationship, a certain level of positive affect and the ability to decrease negative affect when conflict arises. Of these two key parts, he described seven particular components. The first three 32

PAGE 33

components are cognitive room (how much an individual thinks/knows about their partner), fondness and admiration system (the amount of re spect and affection in the relationship), and turning toward vs. turning aw aythe emotional bank account ( how the individuals view the relationship, what he described as a me or w e orientation and the ratio of positive to negative interactions). These aspects a ll contribute to the fourth co mponent called Positive/Negative Sentiment Override. Sentiment Override descri bes how individuals inte rpret their partners actionsalong the spectrum from good to neutral to bad. Gottman posited that if the first three parts of the model function well, then the Positive Sentiment Ove rride is enacted. Partners will then tend to interpret neutral or even negative ac tions as positive or at least as less negative. Whereas if the first three components are not in place or not functioning well, then people will tend to interpret their partners be haviors as negative. The next component of his theory involves conflict discussion and regulation, which depends on the Sentiment Override. He proposed that conflict regulation is much easier when couples engage in Positive Sentiment Overridethey give their partner the benefit of the doubt and problems are then eas ier to resolve. The next piece in his relationship model is making dreams and aspirations come true, what he also called avoiding marital gridlock. This piece is related to accepting part ners accepting influence from one another to achieve their indi vidual and combined life goals. Th e ability to regulate problems and accept influence at this level helps the couple to achieve their goals t ogether. The final piece of the model is creating shared meaning. Gottman proposed that each couple has its own culture; a culture that is constructed a nd co-created by the individuals. The culture of the relationship includes the rituals, roles, goals, and symbols in the relationship. Many aspects of the sound ma rital house theory involve behaviors that a couple can engage in or change to facilitate a good relationship. At the level of cognitive room, Gottman 33

PAGE 34

proposed a list of questions that help increase the amount that partners know and think about each other. He called these questions Love Ma ps. Sample questions include: I know my partners best friends, I know my partners favorite music, and I can tell you in detail my first impressions of my partner. Gottman sugge sts that partners be able to answer these questions and he even created cards in a game format that people can use to learn more about their partner. Making the effort to know and thin k about ones partner incr eases the stability of the relationship. The emotional ba nk account also involves behavioral components. This level of the model includes Gottmans well known 5-to-1 ra tio of positive to negative interactions. He found that stable happy couples had at least five positive exchanges for every one negative exchange. Couples aware of this ratio and aware of their actions can consciously work to exceed this minimal level of positive to negative exchan ges. Creating shared meaning also involves many behavioral aspects of love. Couples co-cre ate meaning in their relationships. They can actively create new rituals (e.g., having dinner together nightly, or a weekly date night) that contribute to the love that they share. In a different research line, Clark and Monin (2006) outlined their work regarding a theory describing receiving communal responsive ness as a central component of love. The behavior of communal responsiveness focus[es] on one anothers needs and welfare, attending to needs and promoting welfare (p. 202). When this behavior is reciprocated by both partners it leads to feelings of safety, security, and even love. Clark and Monin stressed that the responsibility for communal res ponsiveness resides with both partnersthe responder and the receiver. Obviously, the responder mu st act in a way that attends to the needs and welfare of the other. Less obvious is the role of the receiver. Receivers of the nurturing actions must be willing 34

PAGE 35

to be vulnerable and trust that their partners will respond in favorable ways. The combined actions of the partners can lead to an environment of ever-increasing intimacy. Clark and Monin (2006) suggested that there are important co nsiderations in creating a relationship conducive to communal responses. They proposed that individuals must be willing to receive nurturing responses from their partners Responders must also be aware of how to best react to ensure the well-being of their partners. To that end, self-disclosure about needs of each partner becomes important. Expectations and beliefs about whom to seek out for communal responsiveness also play a role. That is, people have hierarchie s of supporters. For example, a spouse might be at the top of a persons hierarch y, meaning that the person will go to the spouse early and often to have needs fulfilled. Lower in the hierarchy might be another family member. A co-worker might represent someone lowe r yet in the support hierarchy. Communal responsiveness is potentially maximized when th ere is a similarity in expectations and both parties hold a similar place in th e hierarchy of the other person. Love can still flourish in onesided communal relationships, where one partne r is more giving and the other partner is receptive of those actions. Even though responsiven ess is imbalanced, ther e is a lot of love perceived in the relationship. Another aspect that facilitates love involves where one places oneself in his or her own hierarchy. People feel re sponsible for their actions and often engage in self-soothing behavior, which is normal and adap tive. However, if someone places himself or herself high above the partner in intimacy, the relationship might su ffer. In essence, this pattern leads to a greater self-focus and can cause less sacrifice and compromise for the other persons benefit (i.e., less communal responsiveness). Clark and Monin (2006) also proposed the impor tance of trust in romantic relationships. They said they people must trust their partners to care for them, but also that they must trust that 35

PAGE 36

their partner wants to receive their help. Without this trust, vulnerability and intimacy are lost. They suggested that exchange relationships decrease trust because it makes partners feel as if they must repay their partners for their good deeds. While this pattern creat es equality, it might work to reduce trust, communa l responsiveness, and love. The theory of communal responsiveness ties well to beha vioral components of love. Through the actions of providing caring and nur turing responses partners can increase vulnerability, trust, and intimacy. People can also foster love by being willing to seek out and ask their partners for care and support. The behavior of reciprocity also e nhances love. Combined, these acts of communal responsiveness serve as base components of love in relationships. Using a factor analytic appr oach, Swensen, Nelson, Warner, and Dunlap (1992; see also Swensen, 1972) produced a six-factor solution for describing the components of love. Participants provided items of wh at they did, said, and felt about their romantic-love partners. Three groups of participan ts then rated how often they experi enced those items and their scores were then factor analyzed. The analysis produced the following si x factors: verbal expression of love; self-disclosure; toleration of loved ones bothersome aspects; moral support, encouragement, and interest; feelings not expressed; and material ev idence of affection. The behaviors of love indicated by Swensen et al. match closely with findings from other love research. For example, tolerating a partners bo thersome aspects matches with the ideas of forgiveness proposed by Rubin (1970). Communication, support, interest, and material support are common themes in many models of love. The research literature that conceptualizes love as a single factor is plentiful. The behavioral components of love that make up the sub-factor s are varied, although many common themes emerged. Themes such as communication, respect, sexual behavior, trust and fidelity 36

PAGE 37

were found in much of the reviewed work. These th emes are also prevalent in the research that takes a multi-factorial appro ach to love, as is eviden t in the next section. Multifactor Approaches and Other Conceptualizations of Love Theories and research studies that posit that many different types of l ove exist are reviewed next. These many-loves approaches vary in their conceptualization of love, but many of the same behaviors that were present in the single factor appro aches are present in these perspectives. Lee (1973, 1988) took the approach that there are many kinds of love, as opposed to love being comprised of a single factor with many co mponents. He conceptualized different types of romantic love that he called love-styles (see al so Lasswell & Lasswell, 19 76). He proposed that people often grow up learning a particular type of love, which will more or less match to their partners love-styles. He posited that the more si milar partners are in love-style the better the relationship will likely be. He also stated that it is quite possible for people to change their lovestyles. Inherent in each love-style are different behaviors that are apt to change with alterations in ones love-style. Lee reportedly collected data from 120 heterosexua l, community participants of all ages in the streets of c ities in England and Canada. Lee (1988) suggested that love is analogous to a color wheel that there are some primary colors (or styles) that people can combine in va rying degrees to produce nearly any color of the proverbial love rainbow (or can be used to desc ribe any relationship). He described what he called the three primary and three secondary colors of love. Theore tically, each of these styles and their associated behaviors can be more or less present in any roma ntic relationship. The primary colors of love include Eros, Storge, and Ludus. Eros represen ts passionate, physical, intense, erotic love. Physical attraction, sex, and sexual behavior are actions commonly experienced by the Eros-style love r. Storge is love that deve lops over time that focuses on affection and commitment commonly associated with friendships. Se xual behavior is less 37

PAGE 38

important to storgic lovers, but rather they will express and experi ence their love through maintaining commitments and by engaging in shared activities with their love partners. Ludus represents love marked by game-playing. The Ludus lover does not feel the intense love of Eros, nor the need for commitment experienced in Stor ge. The Ludus lover behaves in a way that is very focused on the present and may feel little desire to maintain long-term relationships. The secondary colors of love proposed by Lee (1988) are mania, pragma, and agape. Mania is a combination of eros and ludus. There is an intense de sire for the love partner, but contradictory feelings of not liking the partner or not wanting to commit to the partner, which resembles ludus. The manic lover, however, canno t easily disconnect from the lover in the same way that a purely ludic lover can. Pragma is a combination of ludus and storge. The pragma lover takes a practical approach to love. Pragma lovers have a set of criteria that they are looking for in a partner, which may include physical attribut es but not in the same way as an eros lover. They are looking for a long-term partner to w hom they can commit and will shop around (like a ludus lover) until they meet that person. Agape is conceptualized as a selfless, giving love. The agapic lover feels a duty to love According to Lee agape is a combination of eros and storge. Agape-style lovers may feel intens e love for their partners but th ey would express it in behaviors that are more consistent with storge. They will be self-sacrificing and very giving and caring to their partners. Lee (1988) theorized that love is very complex and that these st yles are just a beginning to understanding the intricaci es of love. The potential combinati ons of the various love-styles in individual relationships are nearly limitless, but the behavi ors in each of Lees love-styles are not. There are commonalities of caring, commitme nt, physical expressions of love, shared activities, and expressi on of affect. The ludus style bri ngs a new set of behaviors to the 38

PAGE 39

discussion. The ability to disconnect from love pa rtners is a behavior ra rely discussed in the context of romantic relationships. Lee even admitted that one could argue that this is not love at all, were it not for so many people endorsing th ese types of love experiences. Acceptance, openness, and tolerance for ambiguity in the relationship (i.e., l ack of jealousy) are behaviors associated with ludus. The flexibility of Lees lo ve-styles helps to describe many different kinds of relationships and many different approaches to love. For exam ple, what works for the ludusstyle lover would surely not work well for partne rs in a more traditiona l conceptualization of love. As Lee proposed, it is important that partne rs be closely matched in their love-styles. Research by Mathes (1980) ch allenged Lees colours of love Mathes conducted a factor analysis on participants responses to love it ems taken from Lees love styles. The sample consisted of 56 dating couples. The average age of male participants was 19.76 years old and the average age of female participants was 18.73 years old. Contrary to Lees theory of love, results showed that only one factor emer ged. Mathes proposed that romantic love is consistent with what Lee called eros and that the ludus type of lo ve is antithetical to romantic love. Research by Hendrick and Hendrick (1986) supported Lees wo rk by suggesting that the love types can indeed be measured and that they have stability as factors. Hatfield (1988; see also Berscheid & Walster, 1974; Hatfield & Wals ter, 1978; Hatfield & Sprecher, 1986; Singelis, Choo, & Hatfield, 1995) described two forms of love, passionate and companionate love. She defined pass ionate love as an intense type of love with a strong sense of physical attraction and arousal. She also argued that it can be in tensely pleasurable but can also cause considerable pain if unrequ ited. Behaviors associated with th is type of love include serving the other person, physical closeness, studying th e other person, and working to understand the other persons feelings. Passionate lovers are often driven by intense feelings, both positive and 39

PAGE 40

negative, which they experience regarding the othe r. In contrast, companionate love is the affection we feel for those with whom our liv es are deeply entwined (Hatfield, 1988, p. 205). Hatfield described companionate love as having much more intimacy and closeness with the other person. In companionate love there is a de sire to get to know the other partner on a much deeper cognitive and emotional level than seen in passionate love. Companionate lovers will behave in ways that maximizes their likelihood of increasing intimacy. They will spend much time in close physical proximity touch or gazing into one anothers eyes. Companionate love increases with more positive experiences and, un like passionate love, decreases with negative experiences. Hatfield explained that the two categories are not mutually exclusive and that many relationships include aspects of each type of l ove. Rather, she said that the difference is the emphasis in each typepassionate love focuses on intense positive and negative feelings whereas companionate love focuses more on positiv e interactions. Hatfield suggested that most people in relationships seek to have components of both types of love in their romances. In addition to her descriptions of be haviors inherent to the love styl es, she prescribed a few actions that individuals can take in or der to increase their intimacy. She encouraged partners to accept themselves and their partners as they are. She also proposed that people work to express themselves and their feelings and that they should learn how to deal with their lovers reactions to their own behaviors. In all, the behaviors in these types of love match the behaviors seen in many of the other models including: physical closeness, communication, serving the other person, and intense sexual arousal She highlighted the need for partners to accept themselves and each other, as well as the need for people to learn coping skills to deal with the reactions of their partners. These actions seem vital for increasing intimacy. 40

PAGE 41

Buss (2006) outlined a theory that pr oposed that love is both a cause and an effect of certain behaviors. Buss studied part icipants of all ages in many cross-cultural settings seeking the universal aspects of love, romantic relationships and sexual behavior. He suggested that certain actions elicit feelings of love and that feeli ng loved has been evolutionarily adaptive. For example, he stated that love is a commitment devicethat feeling loved helps to ensure that partners will stay together even through difficult times. Further, partners will likely feel loved when they experience commitment. Love is both an antecedent and consequence of behavior. Buss found that many different behaviors indicate commitment and that commitment can take many forms. These behaviors include providing resources (s uch as shelter and food), a commitment of sexual resources (maintaining sexual fidelity to the partner), reproductive resources (having children together), and parental resources. He proposed th at all of these actions involve some level of self-sacr ifice and signify th e presence of love. He contended that emotional commitment (e.g., talking with The research on love is nearly as many-sple ndored as love itself. However, examining the literature reveals a few notewort hy points for critical discussion. Mo st pertinent to the current project is ones partner about his or her stresses) is another exam ple of behavior that increases love and produces love. Theories and research that adopt the view that there are many different types of love were reviewed. Including many different types of love broadens how we understand love and broadens the definition of a loving relationship. For example, Lees game-playing love style might not be accepted by many as love, but it does describe the e xperience of some people and in that way is important to consider in the di scussion of love. Love is complex. Having many approaches may hold the key to understanding it better. 41

PAGE 42

Critical Review of the Literature One critique of the reviewed literature is the common practice of re searchers using samples of convenience to gather data. Many of the review ed articles and love theories are based on the experiences of undergraduate college students. A few notable exceptions are the work by Gottman and the work of Lee. Gottman recr uited couples from the community to come participate in his lab and Lee went to the st reets of cities in England and Canada for his participants. In creating theories of love based on the experien ce of college students, scholars potentially miss out on the insight and experience of adults beyond early developmental stages of romantic relationships. Generali zing results from college stude nts to all adults may include components of love that adults do not have or mi ss altogether important considerations in adults experiences. Another critique of the love li terature reviewed here is that it is primarily based on selfreports. Gottmans work is again the exception. He examined participants physiological and emotional responses (e.g., heart ra te, facial expressions of emo tion). Using self-reports can be useful particularly when studying such an ambi guous topic as love. Af ter all, who knows better than the participants how they experience love. Bu t it is worthwhile to note the limitations of using self-reported data. A third critique of the literature is that much of it appears to be deferential to just a few research protocols. Many different articles included the same refe rences to earlier work. Some of the articles examined and tested those theories, but it occasionally appeared as if researchers uncritically generalized previous findings to different populations. Two examples of this critique are researchers apparent deference to Sternberg and their apparent opposition to Lee. Many of the reviewed articles cited Ster nberg and his triangular theory of love. A lot of subsequent research has examined those components, but pa rt of Sternbergs work was based on research 42

PAGE 43

using a small sample with a limited age range. A di fferent example is the treatment of Lees love styles. A number of papers appeared to negate Lees love styles with little acknowledgement of the ways that those approaches might have value. Admittedly it is not the responsibility of each paper to question all previous res earch and theory, but reviewing th e literature made it clear that questioning some of the early research may prove valuable. Summary In reviewing the literature it is clear that love is amor phous and indeed quite complex. But it also becomes clear that there are many conc rete, behavioral components of love as well. Many of these behaviors are found in the models of love; many elements of which are quite similar to the factors and items in Heesacker et al.s DLBS (1998). Caring, communication, providing support, respect, and sex all are co mmon pieces in several of the love models. However, many other behavioral components ar e present in love re lationships including: accepting influence from each other, advocacy, co mmitment, conflict regulation, creating shared meaning, desire, doing things together, enjoym ent of each other, exclusivity, expression of positive affect, forgiveness, honesty, nonverbal e xpressions of love, responsiveness, selfsacrifice, tolerance, trust, vulnerability, and in some love styles even game-playing. Review of the empirical literature provided evidence supporting the va lidity of the factors of the Desired Loving Behavior Scale. Reading th rough the literature reveals that the items found in the DLBS are not complete in describing what every couple w ould desire from their romantic relationship. However, it also cl ear that the factors elucidated in the DLBS represent many of the common features that couples look for and want in their relationships. 43

PAGE 44

CHAPTER 3 METHODS The current project included two phases. Part icipants created items for the new DLBS in Phase 1. Phase 2 then used the items provided in Phase 1 to develop the new version of the DLBS and to test the proposed hypotheses. Phase 1 Participants A wide variety of participants was recruited in order to get a general sample. College students at a large Nort heastern university were asked to forward the survey to family and friends, 18 years of age and older, not curren tly enrolled in undergraduate college courses. Participants that completed the survey were al so asked to forward the survey to other people meeting the criteria. This method, known as snowballing, is designe d to yield a diverse sample. One hundred ten people completed the survey (80 women, 30 me n). The average age of the participants was 35.25 years (SD = 12.33) ranging from 19 to 78. Of those reporting ethnicity, 82 (76.6%) identified as European-American, 13 (12.1%) iden tified as other, 5 (4.6%) as African-American, 5 (4.6%) as Latino/Latina, and 2 (1.8%) iden tified as Asian-Ameri can. People recording ethnicity as other reported a variety of ethnic backgrounds including Indian, African, Caribbean, multiracial, Chinese, Portuguese, and Spanish. Half (55) of the participants who responded indicated that they were married, 20 (18 %) indicated they were single, not currently in a relationship, 20 (18%) indicated they were single but currently dating someone, 5 (4.5%) reported their relationship status as other, 4 (3.6%) said they we re cohabiting, 5 indicated that they were divorced, with 2 partic ipants reporting that they had remarried, and 1 person indicated being widowed but remarried. The averag e relationship length was 12.53 years ( n = 85, SD = 12.7) with a range of two months to 58 years. Forty-three out of 100 people reported that they 44

PAGE 45

have children, 24 of which reported that they were still the primary caregivers for their children (i.e., their children are still de pendent on them). The average number of children was 2.5 ( SD = 1.35). The majority of participants i ndicated that they worked full time (n = 69, 62%) followed by graduate students (18, 16%), part-time (14, 12.6%), other (5, 4.5%), unemployed (3, 2.7%), and retired (2, 1.8%). Particip ants reported annual income as follows: Less than $15,000 (13, 11.9%), $15,001-$30,000 (22, 20%), $30,001-$50,000 (22, 20%), $50,001-$75,000 (27, 24%), $75,001-$100,000 (14, 12.8%), and Greater than $100,000 ( 11, 10%). Of those reporting sexual orientation, 102 (93%) were heterose xual, 6 (5%) were gay or lesb ian, and 2 (2%) were bisexual. Measures Participants were asked to freely respond to five items asking them to write in specific behaviors they desired in order to feel love d by their romantic partners (see Appendix A). Participants also completed demographic items. Procedure Participants were recruited via the In ternet using a snowball technique. The survey was completed on-line. Participants completed an on-line informed consent document prior to participating in the protocol. Upon completion of the surveys, participants were debriefed and thanked. Phase 2 Participants As in Phase 1, a wide variety of participants was sought in order to get a broad sample across such demographic informa tion as age, gender, marital status, parenthood, and career status. To run a princi pal components factor analysis, a pproximately five participants were needed per questionnaire item. To meet this criterion, 600 pa rticipants were recruited for this phase. Participants for Phase 2 were recru ited from non-collegiate samples utilizing the same method as in Phase 1. Undergraduate students from two large, public universitie s in the Southeast and Northeast and one small private university in the Midwest were asked to forward 45

PAGE 46

the survey to friends and family who were not currently enrolled in undergraduate college courses. This snowball method of enlisting participants again yielded a diverse sample. Six hundred and eighty-one people completed the survey. Thirty -four participants indicated that they were currently enrolled in undergrad uate courses and were thus excluded from the sample. The demographic information for the remaining part icipants follows. Of those completing the demographic information 394 (71.5%) were wome n and 157 (28.5%) were men. The average age of the participants was 41.6 years (SD = 13.4), the median age was 44 and the mode was 51. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 83 years ol d. Ninety-five percent of those indicating sexual orientation identified as hetero sexual (521), with 3.3% (18) iden tifying as gay or lesbian, and 1.3% (7) identifying as bisexual. Of those reporting ethnicit y, 469 (85.9%) identified as European-American, 27 (4.9%) identified as Hispanic/Latino/Latina, 20 ( 3.7%) as African-American, 12 (2.2%) as AsianAmerican, and 18 (3.3%) reported ethnicity as othe r including Native American/Pacific Islander, Caribbean, Middle Eastern, India n, African, and mixed ethnicit y. Three-hundred and nineteen (58.7%) participants in the samp le indicated that they were married, 75 (13.8%) indicated that they were single but currently dating someone, 66 (12.2%) indicated that they were single and not currently in a relationship, 27 (5.0%) indi cated they were cohabi ting, 27 (5.0%) indicated that they were divorced and rema rried, 16 (2.9%) indicated that they were divorced and single, 8 (1.5%) reported being widowed, and 5 ( 0.9 %) reported being widowed and remarried. The average reported relationship was 16.6 years ( n = 427, SD = 12.6) in length, with a range of one month to 49 years. Three-hundred sixty-six of 515 (71.1%) participants reported that they had children. The modal number of children for those part icipants was 2 with a median 46

PAGE 47

of 2.5 with a range of 1 to 7. Two hundred fift y one people reported that they were still the primary caregivers for their children (i.e., thei r children are still de pendent on them). The average number of children for whom the participants reported being th e primary caregiver was 1.4 ( SD = 1.14). The majority of participants in dicated that they worked full time ( n = 347, 63.2%) followed by part-time (108, 19.7%), graduate students (33, 6.1%), retired (28, 5.1%), unemployed (23, 4.2%), and other (10, 1.8%). Partic ipants reported annual income as follows: Less than $15,000 (65, 12.1%), $15,001-$30,000 (70, 13.0%), $30,001-$50,000 (118, 21.0%), $50,001-$75,000 (102, 19.0%), $75,001-$100,000 (72, 13.4 %), Greater than $100,000 (105, 19.5%), and other (6, 1.1%). Measures Participants were asked to record the ex tent to which they desire each of the newly created items in order to feel loved by their pa rtners. The original items from the DLBS were included along with the new items. De mographic information was also collected. Procedure Participants completed an on-line informed consent document prior to participating in the protocol. The survey was c onducted on-line. Participants were informed that after responding to the surveys th ey could vote for one of their favorite charities and that the charity receiving the most votes would receive $1 for every 10 completed surveys. Upon completion of the surveys, participants were sh own a debriefing page describing the purpose of the research that include d contact information for follow-up or questions. Because of the large number of items and the large number of participants needed to run a factor analysis, Phase 2 used a planned missi ng data procedure. Schafer and Graham (2002) described the planned missing-data procedure (see also Graham, Cumsille, & Elek-Fisk, 2003; Graham, Taylor, Olchowski, & Cumsille, 2006). In brief, the participants and the items are divided into three groups. Each gr oup of participants completes two-thirds of the items. Each 47

PAGE 48

group of items is completed by two groups of participants, with overlap. For example, Participant Group 1 completes Item Groups 1 and 2, whereas Participant Group 2 completes Item Groups 2 and 3. Finally, participant group 3 comple tes Item Groups 1 and 3 (see Table 3-1). This method results in one third of the data being missing. However, the missing data can be imputed from the existing data with reasonable accuracy. The maximum likelihood method was employed to estimate values for the missing data Schafers (1999) esti mation program (NORM) was used to create parameter estimates and to run a single im putation that provided accurate estimates of the missing data. Schafer (NORM; 1999) reported that a single imputation of missing data is robust and adequate for the purposes of running expl oratory analyses. The estimated values were rounded to the near est observed value in the data set. Participants were instructed to complete one of the variations of the survey based on the day of their birth. Participants born in the first four months of the year completed Item Set 1 (Item Groups 1 and 2), participants born in the second four months of th e year completed Item Set 2 (Item Group 2 and 3), and participants born in the last four months of the year completed item set number three (item group 1 & 3; See Table 3-1). To control for or der effects, the order of the items was varied across the different sets of items. The number of people completing each item set was roughly equivalent (Set 1 = 211, Se t 2 = 237, Set 3 = 199). The responses of the participant groups were examined using an An alysis of Variance (ANOVA) with Bonferroni post-hoc tests. Statistically signi ficant differences were found in Factor 2 [F(2, 644) = 3.1, p = .046, p 2 = .01] and Factor 3 [F(2,644) = 5.88, p < .01, p 2 = .018]. Bonferroni post-hoc analyses revealed statistically signifi cant differences between Participant Groups 1 and 3 on Factor 2 ( p = .039) and Factor 3 ( p < .01). Because of these differe nces additional ANOVAs were conducted to analyze for group differences in demographic va riables. Participants did not differ on any of 48

PAGE 49

the demographic variables as a function of whic h form they took. The data imputation might be responsible for the participant group differen ces because the missing, and therefore estimated data, appears to be confounded w ith participant group membership. Participants completing Item Set 1 did not complete any of the items in Fact or 2 (i.e., data for those items were imputed). Likewise, participants completing Item Set 3 did not complete any of the items in Factor 3 those too were imputed. However, all of the imputed items were estimated based on responses completed by other participants completing those forms. Because the imputed data is created based on the actual reported data the two data se ts should theoretically be related, not different. Context effects could account for these differences. The order that participants received the items could have impacted their responses. Participants were assigned to the groups based on the month of their birth with the assumption that there is no connec tion between month of birth and loving desires. No other order e ffects appear in the responses. Co rrelations between the means of the observed data and the imputed data for a ll forms were very strong (as they should be) suggesting that these differences might be a spurious result or some othe r unseen context effect. It is also possible that these differences occurred by chance, especially with such a large sample. In such a large sample any effects might be magnified, particularly given that the Partial Eta squared values were indicative of small effect s. In this circumstance, the Partial Eta squared represents the variance accounted for by the effect compared to the total variance. With one factor in the ANOVA Part ial Eta squared is numerically iden tical to Eta squared and can be interpreted as a percentage of va riance accounted for; similar to an r2 value. As such, the significant difference between Groups 1 and 3 found in Factor 2 accounts for 1% of the variance and the difference found on Factor 3 accounts for 1.8% of the variance. Future research using a confirmatory factor analysis without a planned missing data design is likely to clarify these 49

PAGE 50

issues (see the Chapter 5 section on future research ). There were no other statistically significant differences on any of the other factors as a f unction of the item set participants completed. Data Analysis Data were analyzed using a principa l components factor analysis with Varimax rotation to reduce the number of items on the DLBS. Inspection of the resulting scree plot and factor loadings was used to determin e the number of factors. Items having a factor loading with an absolute value of at least .30, which also loaded less than an absolute value of .30 on any other factor were considered to have achieved simple structure and therefore were included on that factor (Gri mm & Yarnold, 1995). Cronbachs s were calculated to examine item cohesion. Hypothesis Testing. A number of different methods we re used to test the various hypotheses. The factor structure (H ypothesis 1) of the new DLBS was analyzed using a principal components factor analysis with Varimax rotation and scree plot analysis. Internal consistency was examined using a Cronbachs internal consistency analysis. Gender differences (Hypotheses 2 and 3) on the DLBS subscales we re examined using t-tests. Pearson Product Moment correlations were conducted to test H ypotheses 4 and 5, looking at the relationship between age, relationship length and DLBS factor s. Hypothesis 6, which assessed whether or not having children influenced desire s, was examined using t-tests. Also, correlation analyses were conducted to see if a relationship existed betw een the number of children people had and their desires. An ANOVA was conducted to assess differences on the new DLBS factors as a function of work status and income. 50

PAGE 51

Table 3-1 Diagram of Pla nned Missing Data Design Item Group Participant Group 1 2 3 1 Completed Completed Missing 2 Completed Missing Completed 3 Missing Completed Completed 51

PAGE 52

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Phase 1 Participants generated over 500 responses many of which were redundant. Duplicate items were removed and all of the responses we re edited for grammar and wording. Items were also edited to be gender neutral. Phase 1 yielde d 125 non-redundant items to be used in Phase 2. Phase 2 Planned Missing Data Analysis Analysis of the missing data revealed that, as expected, between 33%-43% of the data were missing in each item group. Parameter estimates were calculated for each item group based on the observed data and a single imputation was completed for each group of items. Histogram plot s of the imputed items closely mirrored plots of the observed items (See Figure 4-1). The means and standard deviations of the observed and imputed values were also highly correlated (Means: r = .97, p < .001; SDs: r = .93, p < .001). Factor Analysis A principal components factor anal ysis with Varimax rotation was run and yielded 49 factors with eigenva lues over one. Analysis of the scree plot (See Figure 4-2) indicated that a six-factor solution parsimoniously accounted for the most variance. However, all of the items in the sixth factor cross-loaded onto other factors and c onsequently it was dropped. The resulting five factors, with a total of 46 items (see Appendix B), accounted for 32% of the total variance. Factor one included 14 items a nd represents ideas of providing support to each other in the relationship. Factor one is titled Relationship Suppor t. Factor two has 8 items and represents notions of romance and indications of why the individual is l oved in the relationship. Factor two is labeled Personal Support. Factor three consisted of 8 items and included items regarding loving statements that a person desires to hear from their partner. Factor three is titled Scripting. Seven items make up factor four. Th e items all involve desires for being respected 52

PAGE 53

in the relationship and the factor is titled Respect. The nine items in factor five all relate to desires for sex and a healthy sexu al relationship. Factor five is called Sex. Items are averaged and combined producing a mean score of the items for each factor. A score for the Total scale is also calculated. The Total sc ale is scored by averaging all of the items together. Cronbachs To verify internal consistency reliability analyses were conducted for each factor and for the total scale. The new version of the DLBS proved to have adequate internal consistency (Relationship Support = .91, Personal Support = .86, Scripting = .87, Respect = .84, Sex = .86, Total scale = .90). A correlation matrix was run to examine the relationships among the factors and the total scale. All but one pairing were found to be signif icantly correlated to on e another. Factors 4 and 5 were not correlated with each other. The re maining factors including the total scale all correlated with each other. Theoretically it follo ws that the factors are all related. However, it should be noted that the thres hold for significance is easily me t with such a large sample. Examination of effect sizes showed that these re lationships range from sm all to large with many of the effects falling in the small range (See Table 4-1). Hypothesis Testing The resulting 46 items combine to form the new version of the DLBS, the DLBS-2. As outlined above, scores on th e DLBS-2 were computed for each factor by averaging the items in each factor. A total scor e for all items was calculated using this same method. The factors of the DLBS-2 were then used to examine the hypotheses proposed in Chapter 1. Hypothesis 1 predicted that the factor structur e of the new version of the DLBS will match the structure of the original DLBS. This hypothesis received partial suppor t. Three factors from the original DLBS appear to be reflected among the new factors, Relationship Support, Scripting, 53

PAGE 54

and Sex. Caring Actions did not seem as important to the non-collegiate sample because that factor did not re-emerge in the DLBS-2. Two additi onal factors not seen in the collegiate sample appeared in the life-span sample Personal Support and Respect. At the level of individual items, 12 items from the original DLBS remained on the DLBS-2. Hypothesis 2 predicted that women in the sa mple would desire more relationship support than men in order to feel loved. A t -test revealed a statistically si gnificant difference with women scoring higher than men [ t (549) = 549, p < .001; a small effect, d = .37]. See Table 4-2 for means and standard deviations of all t-tests and ANOVAs. Hypothesis 3 predicted gender differences in desires for sex as it relates to love and was supported. Men desired significantly more sex than did women [ t (549) = 3.244, p <.005, d = .27, a small effect]. A sta tistically significant inverse correlation supported Hypothesis 4. There was an inverse relationship be tween age and desires for sex ( r = -1.22, p < .005, r2 = .015), a small effect. Hypot hesis 5 predicted a negative relationship between the length of relationship and all of the original DLBS factors. Hypothesis 5 received partial support. The pr ediction that there would be an inverse relationship between relationship length and desire for sex in order to feel loved was supported ( r = -.129, p < .01, r2 = .017), but it was a small effect. Incidentally, age and relations hip length were predictably correlated (r = .78, p < .001, r2 = .61, a large effect). Also, th e total DLBS-2 score inversely correlated with relationship length (r = -.111, p < .05, r2 = 0.012, a small effect). There were no other significant correlations betw een relationship length and any of the other DLBS-2 factors. However, it was not possible to examine the corr elation between relationship length and caring actions because caring actions did not em erge as a factor in the DLBS-2. Hypothesis 6 suggested that c ouples without children will desire more sex, relationship support, and scripting to elicit fe elings of love. This hypothesis r eceived partial support. Whether 54

PAGE 55

or not participants had children was recoded in to a dichotomous variable and Hypothesis 6 was then tested using a t -test. People without children de sired more Relationship Support [ t (645) = 2.26, p < .05, d = .18, a small effect] and Sex [ t (645) = 2.59, p < .05, d = .20, a small effect] to feel loved. However, there wa s no difference in Scripting [ t (645) = 0.61, ns ]. A correlation was then conducted to see if there was any relationship be tween the factors and the number of children. None of the relationships between th e number of children and the DLBS-2 factors achieved conventional levels of statistical significance. Ancillary Analyses In addition to the hypothesis test s, exploratory analyses were conducted on the data. As mentioned previousl y, gender differences were predicted and found on the Relationship Support and Sex subscales. Additional t -tests revealed other gender differences. Participants also differed on the other three DLBS-2 factors as a function of participant gender. Women desired more Personal Support [ t (549) = 4.28, p < .001, d = .37, a small effect], Scripting [ t (549) = 2.67, p < .01, d = .23, a small effect], and Respect [ t (549) = 5.94, p < .001, d = .51, a medium effect] to feel loved as comp ared to men. An ANOVA was also conducted to examine group differences in the DLBS-2 factor s based on work status. Differences were found in Factor 2 [ F (7, 541) = 2.24, p < .05] and Factor 4 [ F (7, 541) = 2.49, p < .05]. Bonferroni posthoc analyses revealed that participants that reported their work status as Graduate Student desired more Personal Support to feel loved than people that reported working full-time ( p < .05). Analysis of Factor 4 differenc es found that graduate students desired more Respect to feel loved than participants who reporte d their work status as Other (p < .05). Participants who recorded that work status as Other included four homemakers, two self-employed workers, and one person in-training to become a full-time wo rker. The small number of people in this group suggests caution in generaliz ing from this finding. 55

PAGE 56

56 Income was also analyzed using an ANOVA. No differences on any of the factors were found based on the participants income. While this is not an appropr iate test for confirming that differences do not exist in love based on ones income, it is none theless informative that there were no differences based on income in such a large sample. Additional t -tests revealed other differences in pe ople with vs. without children. Testing of Hypothesis 6 found that people w ithout children desired more Sex and Relationship Support in order to feel loved. Ancillary analyses found th at people without childr en also desired more Personal Support [ t (645) = 2.1, p < .05, d = .17, a small effect] and that, in general, people without children desired more fr om their partners to feel love d, as demonstrated by significant differences on the Total DLBS-2 scale [ t (645) = 3.2, p < .005, d = .25, a small effect]. In summary, results suggest that the da ta collection successfully produced a survey assessing desired loving behaviors in a non-collegiate sample. The survey includes five factors: Relationship Support, Scripting, Personal Suppor t, Respect, and Sex. Hypothesis testing and ancillary analyses revealed differences on th ese factors based on participant gender, age, parenthood status, work status, and the lengt h of the relationship. Additionally, inverse correlations were found among age and desire for sex, and in relationship length and desire for sex as it relates to love.

PAGE 57

57 Table 4-1 Correlations of the Factors and the Total Scale Correlations of DLBS-2 Factors Relationship Support Personal Support Scripting Respect Sex Total Pearson Correlation 1.000 .160(**) .140(**) .230(**) .301(**) .680(**) Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 N 647 647 647 647 647 647 Relationship Support Effect size (r2) .0256 .0196 .0529 .091 .462 Pearson Correlation .160(**) 1.000 .271(**) .515(**) .083(*) .613(**) Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.000 N 647 647 647 647 647 647 Personal Support Effect size (r2) .0256 .0734 .265 .0069 .376 Pearson Correlation .140(**) .271(**) 1.000 .162(**) .151(**) .578(**) Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 N 647 647 647 647 647 647 Scripting Effect size (r2) .0196 .0734 .0262 .0228 .334 Pearson Correlation .230(**) .515(**) .162(**) 1.000 0.035 .542(**) Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.371 0.000 N 647 647 647 647 647 647 Respect Effect size (r2) .0529 .265 .0262 .001 .294 Pearson Correlation .301(**) .083(*) .151(**) 0.035 1.000 .570(**) Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.035 0.000 0.371 0.000 N 647 647 647 647 647 647 Sex Effect size (r2) .091 .0069 .0228 .001 .3249 Note Effect sizes indicate amount of variance explained by each factor. Effect sizes (r2) values below .01 are considered negligible, values between .01 and .059 are considered small effects, values between .059 and .138 are considered medium effects, and values above .138 are considered large effects. **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

PAGE 58

Table 4-2 Means and Standard Deviations of significant t -tests and ANOVAs Means and Standard Deviations Women Men Parents Non-parents Grad Students Fulltime work Other work status Relationship Support 4.24 (.50) 4.04 (.50) 4.13 (.55) 4.25 (.52) Personal Support 3.52 (.68) 6.24 (.68) 3.92 (.79) 3.40 (.69) Scripting 3.45 (.75) 3.26 (.74) 3.37 (.75) 3.42 (.83) Respect 4.33 (.52) 4.02 (.59) 4.55 (.35) 3.83 (.53) Sex 2.63 (.67) 2.84 (.75) 2.64 (.69) 2.81 (.74) Total DLBS 3.67 (.38) 3.53 (.39) 3.60 (.38) 3.71 (.40) 58

PAGE 59

Figure 4-1 Sample histograms demonstrating si milarities in Observed and Imputed data Note Observed data and imputed data for item 1. Im p uted Observed Note Observed data and imputed data for item 22. 59

PAGE 60

Figure 4-2 Scree Plot of Fact or Analysis Showing eigenvalues and Component Numbers. Com p onent numbe r 60

PAGE 61

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Phase 1 Love is Simple, not Easy, but Simple Participants in Phase 1 produced an abundance of items. Some of the items were heartwarming (e.g., snuggle together on the couch), some were depressing (e.g., I wish he would just listen to me once in a while), and some we re even funny (e.g., clean up the dog poop in the yard). Even with the wide array of items ther e was a commonality to what people desired in order to feel loved by their part ners that is, love is simple not easy, but simple, at least according to these data. Even though the items produced in this study re present relatively simple things, these data should not be construed to suggest that love and romantic relati onships are easy. Even with the list of simple things, the actions desired by love rs require work, commitment, and at the most basic level, awareness. If people are unaware of what their partners desire in order to feel loved, they will fail to fulfill those desires. Even if people are aware, they are still required to be willing to provide them and to maintain commitment to providing those desired loving behaviors. Moreover, as Phase 2 revealed, desires for thes e behaviors appear to change over time. People and relationships are dynamic. Couples may need to revisit their desires on a regular basis and to take inventory of what they desire, what th ey are receiving, and how those behaviors are changing over time and with changing circumstan ces (e.g., children, age, le ngth of relationship). Phase 2 Factor Analysis of the DLBS-2 Analysis of the items produced in Phase 1 yielded five coherent factors with strong internal consistency. The five factors relate cl osely to other previous research. Hypothesis 1 predicted that the factors found in the DLBS will be evident in the DLBS-2. Three of the factors 61

PAGE 62

on the original DLBS were retained in the DL BS-2, namely Relationship Support, Scripting, and Sex. However two new subscales emerged, Person al Support and Respect. These factors differ from the original DLBS, but are similar to f actors found in other relationship research. For example, Critelli, Myers, and Loos (1986) came up with five factors in their research. Their factors generally mirror those of the DLBS-2. Aspects of thei r Communicative Intimacy scale are found in the Scripting and Relationship Support scales of the DLBS-2. DLBS-2 Sex subscale is reflected in Critelli et al.s Physical Arousal scale while Respect is a factor common to both their study and my study. Romantic Compatibility and Romantic Dependency are reflected in the Relationship Support and Personal Support scales of the DLBS-2. The five factors in the DLBS-2 also represen t concrete, behavioral aspects of Sternbergs (1988) more theoretical, relationship research. Sternberg (1988) propos ed three theoretical components of love: intimacy, passion, and commitment. The Sex subscale readily translates into passion, Scripting and Personal Support reflect components of intimacy, and Relationship Support and Respect fit within Sternbergs concept of commitment. Caring actions, a factor of the original DLBS, was not retained in the current research. Items reflecting this factor were produced by part icipants in Phase 1. Howe ver, the factor did not emerge as a strong component in the DLBS-2. An alysis of the factors with an eigenvalue over one suggested that such a factor was present, but it did not account for much variance in the current sample. The reasons for this result coul d be many. One explanation is that people might desire more caring actions at th e beginning of their relationships. There was great variability of relationship length in the current sample incl uding some new relationships, but the average length of relationship was 16.6 years (SD = 12.6 y ears). The participants used to create the DLBS were likely in a very different stage of relationship development (i.e., attraction and 62

PAGE 63

relationship building as opposed to relationship maintenance) than those used to create the DLBS-2. Also, differences could be caused by cohort effects. Ol der generations might desire fewer actions than younger generations. Any di fferences found between the DLBS and DLBS-2 might be caused by differences in the social envir onment in which participants were raised or the one in which they are presently embedded. Dion a nd Dion (2006) proposed that love is a culturebound phenomenon. Culture is dynamic and always evolving. One of the driving factors leading to this project was the belief that having and caring for children would be a major influe nce on the reported desires of those individuals with children. Surprising to this author, no such factor emerged in the factor analysis. Participants in Phase 1 produced items regarding caring for children but th ese items did not account for much variance in Phase 2. Group differences between people with and without children were found in the desires on the factors that emerged (which will be di scussed in more detail later in this chapter), but because of the large impact of children on roma ntic relationships I expected a larger effect. The data suggest instead that there are more impo rtant factors in producing feelings of love than those linked to providing care for children. That does not mean that caring for children is unrelated to feeling loved (although the design of this study cannot confirm or deny this relationship), but simply that other, more influe ntial factors related to feeling loved emerged. In a similar vein, there was a common theme in the responses in Phase 1 that did not survive the winnowing that occurred in Phase 2. A nu mber of participants wrote that they wanted to just be held, or that they wanted to be intimate with thei r partner without it leading to sex. Other similar items included, waiting for me to be ready to have sex, or not pressuring me to have sex. The fact that these items were not re tained in Phase 2 suggests that there are more important contributors to feeling loved. However, the issues of readiness for sex and social 63

PAGE 64

pressure to have sex are important ones. It may simply be that these issues are important, but relatively unrelated to feeling loved. People might still feel lo ved even though they feel a mismatch between their own sexual de sire and that of their partner. In therapeutic settings it will be important to assess for such discrepancie s even though these items are not on the DLBS-2. One possible solution for therapists using the DLBS-2 with clients is to have them take fill out the DLBS-2, but then also leave blanks at the end to write in other things that they desire in order to feel loved. Another common item produced in Phase 1 that wa s not retained in Phase 2 was the desire to hear the partner say I love you. Many participants indicated th at they wanted their partners to say they loved them, in order for them to feel loved. However, there were also many people that supported the view that actions speak louder than words. That is, they did not want to hear I love you, at least not without some action supporting the words. Rationally it follows that it should load onto the Scripting factor; however th at was not the case. In reviewing the factor analysis, the Say I love you item loaded onto Factor 8 (below the cut-off point indicated by the scree plot) and it cross-loaded on another fact or. This failure to achieve simple structure necessitated that the item be dropped even though it has high face validity. The effect on scale validity of including or excluding any one item is likely to be negligible because a lot of variation in feeling loved will be captured by th e other items. However, it might be worthwhile to include it as an item in clinical settings, or at leas t to include it as a topi c of discussion with a couple in counseling. Asking participants what it means for them to hear I love you from their partners and asking whether that is important to them might facilitate further discussion in a therapeutic setting. 64

PAGE 65

Hypothesis Testing Hypothesis 2 predicted that women would desire more relationship support than men in order to feel loved. Hypothesis 2 was based on a consistent gender difference found on that subscale of the DLBS (Tiegs et al., 2008). Thes e gender differences were upheld in the current sample. It appears that women, more than men, want to feel support in the relationship. This finding suggests that women desire to focus more on the relationship at l east as it pertains to these items in order to feel loved. Popular theori es have suggested that women are interested in romantic relationships whereas men are not. One way of interpreting womens greater desires for relationship support to feel loved might be just th atthe fact that women are more interested in the relationship. However, a more accurate interpretation might be to say that women are more interested in worki ng on the relationship in that way It doesnt appear that men are uninterested in the relationship. It ju st might be that they do not as st rongly desire a relationship focus in order to feel loved. The scores, while statistical ly different, were close, suggesting that women and men do differ, just not that much (by Cohen s standards this was a small effect). The same argument could be made for the findings for Hypot hesis 3, also a small effect. Men desired more sex than did women in order to feel loved. Does this mean that women are uninter ested in sex? Not hardly; again scores for wome n and men were statistically di fferent, but still similar. The point here is not to pigeonhole women and men, but rather to look at how they approach relationships with the understa nding that there are some diff erences, but that there are many similarities as well. In addition, the current re search tells us nothing about the origin of any differences. Are they biological in nature or socially c onstructed? Or, and perhaps more likely, is it some combination of nature and nurture? As predicted in Hypothesis 4, the data s howed an inverse correlation between age and desire for sex as it relates to feeling loved. It is well docum ented (e.g., Brewis & Meyer, 2005; 65

PAGE 66

Long, Burnett, & Thomas, 2006) that as people ag e they want less sex, whether it makes them feel loved or not. Related to H ypothesis 4 are the predictions ma de in Hypothesis 5. Relationship length was found to be inversely correlated with certain, but not all of the, factors on the DLBS2. Relationship length and desire for sex were pred ictably inversely correlate d. This effect is also likely to be related to changes from getting ol der. Relationship length and total DLBS-2 score were negatively correlated, albeit a small effect. No other factors were significantly correlated with relationship length suggesting that the drop in desire for sex likely drives the drop in total desire as it relates to lo ve. This finding also suggests that the DLBS-2 factors other than sex remain important to feeling loved the relationshi p. It also likely means that partners must continue to provide loving behavi ors for their partners throughout the span of the relationship that the relationship requires work to main tain feelings of love in each partner. Hypothesis 6 introduced children as a factor in roman tic relationships. As predicted, people without children desired more sex and more relationship support in order to feel loved. They did not, however, desire more scripting than people with childre n. Many possible reasons explain this difference. The most obvious seems to be time and focus. In general, couples with children have more distractions from the relati onship. That is, simply caring for the children requires a lot of time (not counti ng any additional activities that the children may be involved in that take time away from focus on the roman tic relationship). Couples without children are perhaps no less busy, but with no children in the home they may focus on each other more both sexually and in regards to improving the relationship. Another possible explanation is that couples with children may get some of their lo ve needs met by caring for their children and consequently the romantic part ners actions are less important. 66

PAGE 67

Ancillary Analyses In addition to the predicted gender differences on Sex and Relationship Support subscales, significant effects were found for th e remaining DLBS-2 factors. Women desired more Personal Support, Scripting, and Respect than men in order to feel loved. The differences in Personal Support and Scripting were both small effects and whereas the difference in Respect was a medium sized effect. These findings sugge st that women simply want more from their romantic relationships than men do. Again, it is important not to pigeonhole women and men into restrictive gender roles but rather to examine overall patterns that may play out in individual relationships. The current resear ch can only demonstrate that th ere are differences. It cannot speak to the origins of these differences. One speculation is that the diffe rences in loving desires on Personal Support, Scripting, a nd Respect are related to the social environment in which participants were raised and in which they li ve currently. Common comm unication styles in the U.S. suggest that women talk more and want to hear that they ar e loved (e.g., Tannen, 2007). Also, women historically have been disadvantaged with regard to receiving respect. Women could not vote until the 20th century. They still do not receive equal pay for equal work, and they often dot not have access to the same resour ces as men. Even though these disparities are diminishing, research (Gervais & Vescio, in press) suggests that women continued to be disrespected in our society. The culminating effect of this disrespect in many aspects of their lives may lead women to desire more respect in their personal relationshi ps. Men receive respect in many other arenas and so may desire less in order to feel loved. Or, possibly men may not value the respect they receive from their partne rs or that the respect they receive does not translate into feelings of love and consequently th ey have lower desires in this area. All of these ideas are simply conjecture that may seed future research. 67

PAGE 68

As mentioned in the discussion of Ph ase 1, the items produced by participants represented simple things; none of the items repr esented desires for money or expensive gifts. An ANOVA of income differences on DLBS-2 factors produced results consistent with this lack of focus on money and expensive gifts. There we re no differences in what people desired based on their reported incomes. The ANOVA suggest that love and m oney are unrelated. A curious, but not surprising, effect was found in the experience of graduate students. ANOVAs revealed that graduate st udents desired more personal support than people in full-time positions and more respect than people reporting work status as other in order to feel loved. The experience of graduate school is often difficult and challenging; an experience that may elicit a greater need to rely on social support resulting in their higher scores on the Personal Support scale. A few possibilities exist to explain gradua te students higher scores on the Respect scale compared to those indicating Other for thei r work status. Again, graduate school is a challenging process that may lead to humble feelings, which, in turn, may cause graduate students to desire more respect in order to feel loved from their partners. Another possible explanation is that graduate students are more empowered and demand mo re respect from their partners. Research (e.g., Phela n, Link, Stueve, & Moore, 1995) suggests that there is a correlation between education leve l and endorsement of social liberal ideology. This tendency toward liberal thinking may lead graduate students to want more respect in their relationships than others, especially consider ing that many of the people in the Other category were full-time, stay-at-home mothers. These participants represent a more traditional understanding of gender roles in relationships, which may impact how much respect they demand from their romantic partners. The current project was not designed to answer these que stions, but in conducting these ancillary analyses more future opportunities are possible. Anothe r possible explanation is that 68

PAGE 69

there is a sex effect confounding the results. Furt her exploration will likely explicate the answer to this question. Hypothesis 6 predicted that people without children would desire more loving behaviors on the Sex and Relationship Support subscales. This hypothesis received support. Ancillary analyses provided further information regard ing having children a nd feeling loved. People without children also had higher scores on the Personal Support and Total DLBS-2 scales. These findings suggest that having children strongly influences how pe ople experience their romantic relationships. Seemingly, the focus for couples wi th children shifts from each other toward caring and providing for their offs pring. In fact, the only DLBS-2 factors that couples with and without children did not diffe r on in their loving desires we re Scripting and Respect. One possible explanation of these findi ngs is that the factors of Resp ect and Scripting represent core aspects of the relationship. That is that unrequited desire s for these loving behaviors may lead to dissolution of the rela tionship. Desires for Sex, Relationship Support, and Personal Support in order to feel loved may be secondary to caring fo r children as long as there is still respect and some expression of love between partners. Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions The current project has a nu mber of strengths. The DLBS -2 was created using a bottomup approach. By having participan ts produce the items in Phase 1, the DLBS-2 represents real life experiences and desires in adults relationshi ps; some of which likely could not have been predicted by experts. Another st rength is the large sample collected from the community. The participants represented a large cross-section of the population and were not simply a sample of convenience. Accordingly, their responses may be more representative of the population than research done on college students. Also, the sheer nu mber of participants allows for detection of even small effects (this may also represent a wea kness, as will be discussed later). The use of a 69

PAGE 70

planned-missing data design allowed for a large numb er of participants to complete the survey without being overwhelmed by an enormous numb er of items. This methodology represents an additional strength of the current project. In addition to its strengths, the current re search has a few limitations. In some ways the sample was quite diverse, but in other ways it was rather homogenous. The sample had large variability in age and relations hip length. One weakness of Phase 1 is that it only included 30 men. However those men represented a wide ag e range and their responses were largely redundant with those provided by women. In addition, cultural minorities and LGBT groups were not well-represented. Also, the sample itsel f was more affluent th an the general population. Again, there was wide variability in participan ts reported income, but people in the highest income bracket (annual income over $100,000 in th is case) were overrepresented. There did not appear to be any effects based on income, but in come may remain as a factor to attend to. A related limitation is that the research was conducted entirely through on-line surveys. This method automatically introduces bias into th e sample. Although many people have access to computers and the internet, collecting data on-line might still bias samples towards higher income level, higher levels of education, and gr eater technical sophistic ation than the population at large. Everyone in this sample is a member of the haves in the digital divide. Future research might include paper and pencil copies of the surv ey to be used in community settings where people do not have access to the in ternet. Additionally, th e sample might be skewed somewhat in education. By having college students forward the su rvey to friends and family their might be a bias toward a more highly educated sample of the population. Unfortunately education level was not assessed in the current research so the extent of this bias is unknown. 70

PAGE 71

Another potential limitation of the research might reside in and mirror one of its strengths. The large size of the sample in Phas e 2 likely elevated the chance to find significant effects when testing hypotheses. For example, some of the gender differences might be magnified and statistically significant simply because there were so many participants. Effect sizes were reported and should be attended to in understanding the practical significance of statistically significant effects. The inability to rule out cohort effects represents a further limitation of the current project, but also an opportunity for future research. The current research used a cross-sectional approach and therefore constitutes a snapshot of people across age groups. Howeve r, the cross-sectional design cannot control for cohort effects. In this case socialization around love and romantic relationships is one example of a potentially ve ry influential cohort effect. Going forward, a longitudinal research design could be combined with a cohort research design to produce a sequential design, which would increase the ability to estimate the separate influences of age and cohort on DLBS-2 responses. The current research presents many other opport unities for future research as well. An important next step in any scale creation is to verify its reliability and validity. A scales validity depends on its reliability. Future research should a ssess the test-retest reliab ility of desires on the DLBS-2. Theoretically, the amount of received loving behaviors will change and so it does not make sense conceptually to evaluate the test-retest reliability of r eceived loving behaviors. However, as demonstrated by research on the DL BS, desires for loving be havior stay fairly constant and should be mostly c onsistent over time. The factor structure of the DLBS-2 should also be further assessed using confirmatory factor analysis as a way of verifying the established structure. Confirmatory factor analysis will help to show how well the current factor structure 71

PAGE 72

describes the experiences of participants. A confirmatory factor an alysis would also help to see how well the established fact or structure would genera lize to other samples. Following assessment of test-retest reliability and confirmatory factor analysis, further studies of the validity of the DLBS-2 should be examined. Re search on the DLBS (Tiegs et al., 2008) found that the discrepancy between desi red and received loving behaviors is a good predictor of relationship satisfaction. The same predictive relations hip should be tested for the DLBS-2. Also, convergent and discriminant validity should be assessed by comparing the DLBS-2 to other relationship measures including possibly the DLBS. Beyond verifying the validity of the scale, othe r future research involves using the DLBS-2 to examine relationship issues and patterns. It can also be used to examine gender emotion stereotypes in romantic relati onships for adults. Such rese arch might include additional comparisons of women and men on the DLBS-2 s ubscales. Gender stereotypes can be tested by having participants rate how they think men and women would respond to the items and then comparing that to the participants own responses. The purpose of this line of research would be to assess the accuracy of gender differences in order to understand in what realms women and men may actually differ and where they are sim ilar. Inaccurate beli efs regarding gender differences could then be challenged to help em power women and men alike in their lives and in their romantic relationships. Other research could extend th e utility of the DLBS-2 into counseling. Future studies might examine couples reactions to completing the DLBS-2 and then sharing and comparing their answers with their partners. One intervention might be to have indi viduals rate how they think their partner would respond to the items and then compare those answers to their partners actual responses. The idea being that taking the DLBS-2 in this context might raise peoples 72

PAGE 73

awareness of their partners desires. Doing so mi ght facilitate a discussion of what people want from the relationship and how they can go about getting what they want from their partners. Such discussions might lead to behavioral chan ges and ultimately could improve satisfaction in the relationship. Use of the DLBS-2 Once its reliability and validity have been demonstrated across several samples, the DLBS-2 could be used in multiple settings with an array of applications. The DLBS-2 may serve as a powerful research tool in understanding how adults experience love in their relationships. Using the DLBS-2 in research settings may help to elucidate gender roles and gender differences in how people experience and approach love in their relationships. The DLBS-2 could also be employed to help understand the imp act that other influences (e.g., age, children, education) have on love. Research on the original DLBS demonstr ated a strong relations hip between relationship satisfaction and an individuals re ported discrepancy between their desired loving behaviors and those that they received from their partners. If this discre pancy effect is replicated with the DLBS-2, it could then be used as a predicto r of relationship satisfa ction and relationship dissolution among non-collegians. Further, the DLBS-2 could potentially be used in therapeutic settings to help facilitate di scussion of and increase understa nding of how partners experience and how they want to experience love in their relationships. Summary The current project created a new version of the Desired Loving Behavior Scale, the DLBS-2. The new version was created using a bottom-up approach utilizing items produced by participants. The DLBS-2 extends the research ca pabilities of the existing DLBS in that the DLBS-2 was produced and normed on a non-colle giate (i.e., non-undergraduate students), adult sample. One of the driving forces behind creatin g a new version is that adults beyond the age 73

PAGE 74

range of those in college experience their rela tionships differently. College students are most likely still early in their relationship developmen t and their own personal development, as well. Older participants have likely progressed beyond those early rela tionship stages and therefore may desire different behaviors from their partners in order to feel loved. They may also have other life factors impacti ng their relationship, such as children. The current project demonstrated both similarities to, and differen ces from the factors in the DLBS. This project produced two new factors, and dropped one of the original factors. These new f actors closely relate to factors produced in earlier research and to ideas proposed in earlier conceptual work. Hypothesis testing revealed significant differences as a function of gender, age, relati onship length, and parenthood on desires for loving behaviors. Such findings constitute valuable information about how women and men experience love in their relationships as well as how age and parenthood can alter romantic relationship desires. While limited, the curre nt research helps to pa ve the way for future studies on gender, gender stereotypes, and relatio nship satisfaction. In addition to its potential utility in research, the DLBS-2 holds promise fo r use in therapeutic settings to facilitate discussion and increase relati onship satisfaction in couples. 74

PAGE 75

APPENDIX A PHASE 1 ITEMS In the following space please reflect on a current, past, or future relationship and fill in what you want your romantic partner to DO or SAY in order for you to feel loved Note there is a difference between what you want them to do in your relationship, and what you want them to do in order for you to feel loved. Remember, all answers are kept confidential. For example: You may expect your partner to help with the kids. If this is an expectation you have unrelated to you feeling loved, do not list it. But if your partne r helping with the kids helps you feel loved, then please list it. Please list what you want a romantic partner to DO or SAY in order for you to feel loved List as many as you can think of (the text box will expand). Previous research has documented common areas th at people list when asked about what they want from romantic partners in order to feel loved. Please reflect again on what you want your partner to DO or SAY in order for you to feel loved with each of the listed specific areas in mind. If you listed an item in a previous section that you think would fit here, please do not list it again. Caring Actions some people desire caring actions from their partner in order to feel loved. Examples of caring actions include: Plan a candlelight dinner. Put a note on my car. Do my laundry every once in a while. Please list what you want a romantic partner to DO or SAY related to caring actions that you desire in order to feel loved. 75

PAGE 76

Sex some people desire sex and sexual behavior from their partner in order to feel loved. Examples of sex items may include: Tell me what he/she likes and dislikes in bed. Seduce me. Be open to trying new sexual positions. Please list what you want a romantic partner to DO or SAY related to sex th at you desire in order to feel loved. Communication/Scripting some people desire to talk and to have their partner say certain things in order to feel loved. Examples of scripting items may include: Tell me that I make them happier than anyone else. Say to me, You mean so much to me. Say, I love you with all my heart and soul. Please list what you want a romantic partner to DO or SAY related to communication/scripting that you desire in order to feel loved. Relationship Support some people desire actions that he lp to build a strong relationship. Examples of relationship support items may include: Make our relationship a mutual project. Be a good listener to me. Help me through tough times. Please list what you want a romantic partner to DO or SAY related to re lationship support that you desire in order to feel loved. 76

PAGE 77

Please list any additional things that you have not listed already you want your partner to DO or SAY in order for you to feel loved that may not fit into these areas. 77

PAGE 78

APPENDIX B DLBS-2 FACTORS AND ITEMS Factor Item 1 1. Make me a priority in their life. 1 2. Stand up for me to others. 1 3. Remember what I say. 1 4. Be honest with me. 1 5. Get along well with my friends and family. 1 6. Make our relations hip a mutual project.* 1 7. Initiate activities to strengthen our relationship. 1 8. Create a feeling of security between us.* 1 9. Look me in the eyes lovingly. 1 10. Discuss and work together to solve problems. 1 11. Live up to their promises be true to their word. 1 12. Be fair and balanced and keep me balanced. 1 13. Be happy to see me. 1 14. Laugh with me. 2 15. Say to me, "You mean so much to me."* 2 16. Say to me, "You make me happy." 2 17. Be romantic. 2 18. Tell me they love me more than they have loved anyone else. 2 19. Ask me if they can help me. 2 20. Tell me the reasons why they love me. 2 21. Say, "All of my friends/family love you". 2 22. Say to me, "I think that we make a great couple."* 3 23. Say to me, "You look beautiful/handsome". 3 24. Tell me that I am part of their family. 3 25. Tell me that I am the most important person in their life. 3 26. Say to me, "I trust you". 3 27. Say to me, "I enjoy spending time with you more than any other person."* 3 28. When talking to others say "we" instead of "I". 3 29. Tell me that I make them happier than anyone else. 3 30. Say to me, "You make me want to be a better person". 4 31. Care about my whole person, including my mind and my body. 4 32. Help me through stress and rough times.* 4 33. Show respect for my intelligence a nd my contributions to conversations. 4 34. Work on our relationship together. 4 35. Be sympathetic to my feelings.* 4 36. Listen to and car e about my opinions. 4 37. Be aware of how their actions impact me. Note Factor 1 = Relationship Support, Factor 2 = Personal Support, Factor 3 = Scripting, Factor 4 = Respect, Factor 5 = Sex. *indicates that this item was held over from the DLBS. 78

PAGE 79

Factor Item 5 38. Try new things and be spontaneous during sex.* 5 39. Say to me, "Let's make love."* 5 40. Buy sexy clothes/lingerie. 5 41. Use sex toys or lotions during sex. 5 42. Oral sex.* 5 43. Leave me a sexy voicemail/e-mail at work. 5 44. Seduce me, or allow me to seduce them.* 5 45. Strip for me. 5 46. Read sexy books or watch sexy movies together. Note Factor 1 = Relationship Support, Factor 2 = Personal Support, Factor 3 = Scripting, Factor 4 = Respect, Factor 5 = Sex. *indicates that this item was held over from the DLBS. 79

PAGE 80

REFERENCES Abelson, R. (1963). Computer simulation of Hot Cognition. In S.S. Tomkins & S. Messick (Eds.), Computer simulation of personality: Frontier of psychological theory (pp. 277298). New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Allgeier, E. R., & Royster, B. J. T. (1991). New approaches to dating and sexuality. In E. Grauerholz and M. Koralewski (Eds.) Sexual coercion (pp. 133-147). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Aron, E. N., & Aron, A. (1996). Love and expansion of the self: The state of the model. Personal Relationships, 3, 45-58. Aron, A., & Westbay, L. (1996). Dimensions of the prototype of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70 535-551. Baumeister, R. F., & Bratslavs ky, E. (1999). Passion, intimacy, a nd time: Passionate love as a function of change in intimacy. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3 49-67. Beall, A.E., & Sternberg, R. J. (1995). The social construction of love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12 417-438. Berscheid, E. (1988). Some comments on loves anatomy: Or, whatever happened to oldfashioned lust? In R. J. Sternberg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love (pp. 359-374). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1974). A littlbe bit about love. In T. L. Huston (Ed.), Foundations of interpersonal attraction (pp. 355-381). New York: Academic Press. Blow, A. J., & Hartnett, K. (2005). Infidelity in committed relationships II: A substantive review. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31 217-233. Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and Loss (Vol. 1). Attachment (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books. Brewis, A., & Meyer, M. (2005). Mari tal coitus across the life course. Journal of Biosocial Science, 37, 499-518. Buss, D. M. (2006). The evolution of love. In R. J. Sternberg & K. Weis (Eds.) The new psychology of love (pp. 65-86). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Callan, V. J. (1984). Childlessn ess and marital adjustment. Australian Journal of Sex, Marriage, & Family, 5 210-214. 80

PAGE 81

Canary, D. J., & Emmers-Sommer, T. M., with Faulkner, S. (1997). Sex and Gender Differences in Personal Relationships. New York: The Guilford Press. Carlson, B.E. (1987). Dating violence: A research review and comparison with spouse abuse. Social Casework, 68(1), 16-23. Cawood, R.L., & Heesacker, M. (2001). Construct validation of the Desired Loving Behaviors Scale Unpublished manuscript. Clark, M. S., & Monin, J. K. (2006). Giving and receiving communal responsiveness as love. In R. J. Sternberg & K. Weis (Eds.) The new psychology of love (pp. 200-221). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Critelli, J. W., Myers, E. J., & Loos, V. E. ( 1986). The components of love: Romantic attraction and sex role orientation. Journal of Personality, 54 354-370. Crooks, R. & Baur, K. (2002). Our sexuality (8th ed.). Pacific Gr ove, CA: Wadsworth. Davis, K. E. (1985, February). Near a nd dear: Friendship and love compared. Psychology Today, 22-30. Davis, K. E., & Todd, M. J. (1982). Friendship and love relationships. Advances in descriptive psychology, 2 79-122. Dion, K. K., & Dion, K. L. (1996). Cultu ral perspectives on romantic love. Personal Relationships, 3, 5-17. Dion, K. K., & Dion, K. L. (2006). Individualism, co llectivism, and the psychology of love. In R. J. Sternberg & K. Weis (Eds.) The new psychology of love (pp. 298-312). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Fehr, B. (1988). Prototype analysis of the concepts of love and commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55 557-579. Fehr, B., & Russell, J. A. (1991). The concept of love viewed from a prototype perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60 425-438. Fehr, B. (1994). Prototype-based assessment of laypeoples views of love. Personal Relationships, 1, 309-331. Forgas, J. P., & Dobosz, B. (1980). Dimensions of Romantic Involvement: Towards a taxonomy of heterosexual relationships. So cial Psychology Qu arterly, 43, 290-300. Freud, S. (1955/1922). Certain neurotic mechanisms in jealousy, paranoia, and homosexuality. In Collected Papers (Vol. 2, pp. 235-140, 323). London: Hogarth. 81

PAGE 82

Freud, S. (1955). Group psychology and the analysis of the ego. The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 18). London: Hogarth. Fromm, E. (1956). The art of loving New York: Harper. Gervais, S. J., & Vescio, T. K. (in press). The origins and consequences of subtle sexism. In Psychology of Power New York: Nova Science Publishers. Gottman, J. (1979). Marital inte raction: Experimental investigations. New York: Academic Press. Gottman, J. (1999). The marriage clinic New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Graham, J. W., Cumsille, P. E., & Elek-Fisk, E. (2003). Methods for handling missing data. In J. A. Schinka, W. F. Velicer (Eds.) Handbook of psychology: Research methods in psychology: Vol. 2 (pp. 87-114). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons. Graham, J. W., Taylor, B. J., Olchowski, A. E., & Cumsille, P. E. (2006). Planned missing data designs in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 11 323-343. Grimm, L. G., Yarnold, P. R. (1995). Read ing and understanding multivariate statistics. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Harvey, J. H., Wenzel, A., & Sprecher, S. (Eds.) (2004). The handbook of sexuality in close relationships Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlba um Associates Publishers. Hatfield, E. (1988). Passi onate and companionate love. In R. J. Sternberg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love (pp. 191-217). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1986). Measuri ng passionate love in intimate relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 9 383-410. Hatfield, E., Sprecher, S., Pillemer, J. T., Greenbe rger, D. (1988). Gender differences in what is desired in the sexual relationship. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 1 3-52. Hatfield, E., & Walster, G. W. (1978). A new look at love Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love con ceptualized as an attach ment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524. Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. (1986). A theory and method of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50 392-402. Heesacker, M., Smith, M., & Lawrence, A. (1998). The Desired Loving Behavior Scale. In C.M. Davis, W. L. Yarber, R. Bauserman, G. Scheer, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (pp. 452-453). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 82

PAGE 83

Heesacker, M., Stanley, K. E., & Tiegs, T. J. (2004). Sex bias estimates of infidelity. Unpublished Manuscript. University of Florida. Heesacker, M., Tiegs, T. J., Lawrence, A. W., Smith, M. B., Cawood, R. L., Mejia-Millan, C. M. (2003) Was Lord Byron right? An analysis of the magnitude and stability of sex differences in romantic relationships. Unpub lished manuscript. Univ ersity of Florida. Heesacker, M. Tiegs, T. J., LaBarge, D. C., Millan, C. M., Lawrence, Jr., A. W., Smith, M. B., & Cawood, R. L. (2006, August). Desired and received loving behaviors by men and women in romantic relationships. In D. Shepard (Chair), Men in love. Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, New Orleans. Heesacker M., Wester, S. R., Vogel, D. L., Wentzel, J. T., Mejia-Millan, C. M., & Goodholm, Jr., C. R., (1999). Gender-bas ed emotional stereotyping. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 483-495. Holmes, T.H., & Rahe, R.H. (1967). The social readjustment scale. Journal of psychosomatic research, 11(2), 213-218. Jackson, T., Chen, H., Guo, C., & Gao, X. (2006). Stories we love by: Conceptions of love among couples from the Peoples Republic of China and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37 446-464. James, W. H. (1981). The honeym oon effect on marital coitus. The Journal of Sex Research, 17 114-123. Kingsberg, S. A. (2000). The psychological imp act of aging on sexuality and relationships. Journal of Womens Health and Gender-Based Medicine, 9 33-38. Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B. & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders. Lasswell, T. E., & Lasswell, M. E. (1976) I love you but Im not in love with you. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 2 211-224. Lasswell, M., & Lobsenz, N. M. (1980). Styles of loving New York: Ballantine. Lee, J. A. (1973). Colors of love Toronto: New Press. Lee, J. A. (1988). Love-styles. In R. J. Sternberg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love (pp. 38-67). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Levinger, G., Rands, M., & Talaber, R. (1977). The assessment of involvement and rewardingness in close and casual pair relationships (National Science Foundation Technical Report DK). Amherst: Un iversity of Massachusetts. 83

PAGE 84

Long, L. L., Burnett. J. A., & Thomas, R. V. (2006). Sexuality counseling: An integrative approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Mathes, E. W. (1980). Nine colour s or types of romantic love. Psychological Reports, 47 371376. Marazziti, D. (2005). The neurobiology of love. Current Psychiatry Reviews, 1 331-335. Marston, P. J., Hecht, M. L., & Robers, T. ( 1987). True love ways: Th e subjective experience and communication of romantic love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4 387-407. Mejia-Millan, C. M, & Heesack er, M., & Todd, B. (2006). Fee ling loved, receiving desired loving behaviors, and experiencing relationship satisfacti on among unmarried collegians. Manuscript in preparation. Murstein, B. I. (1988). A taxonomy of love. In R. J. Sternberg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love (pp. 13-37). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. National Center for Health Statistics: Center fo r Disease Control and Pr evention, Department of Health and Human Services (2002). Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the United States. (DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 2002-1998). Hyattsville, MA: U.S. Government Printing Office. National Center for Health Statistics: Center fo r Disease Control and Pr evention, Department of Health and Human Services (2002). Births, Marriages, Divorces, and Deaths: Provisional Data for September 2001. (DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 2002-1120). Hyattsville, MA: U.S. Government Printing Office. Phelan, J., Link, B. G., Stueve, A., & Moore, R. E. (1995). Education, so cial liberalism, and economic conservatism: Attitudes towards homeless people. American Sociological Review, 60 126-140. Rosen-Grandon, J. R., Myers, J. E., & Hattie, J. A. (2004). The relationship between marital characteristics, marital interaction processes, and marital satisfaction. The Journal of Counseling and Development, 82, 58-68. Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 265-273. Rubin, Z. (1973). Liking and loving: An invita tion to social psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Rusbult, C. E., (1980). Commitment and satisfac tion in romantic associ ations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172-186. 84

PAGE 85

Rusbult, C.E. (1986). Predicting satisfaction and commitment in adult romantic involvements: An assessment of the generalizabil ity of the investment model. Social Psychology Quarterly 49, 81-89. Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The Investment Model Scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quali ty of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5 357-391. Samson, A.W. (1996). An experimental validation of the Desired Loving Behavior Scale. Unpublished masters thesis, University of Florida. Samson, J. M., Levy, J. J., Dupras, A., & Tessi er, D. (1991). Coitus fr equency among married and cohabitating heterosexual adults : A survey in French-Canada. Journal of Family Studies, Australia, 12, 103-109. Schafer, J.L. (1999) NORM: Multiple imputation of incomplete multivariate data under a normal model, version 2. Software for Windows 95/98/NT, available from http://www.stat.psu.edu/~jls/misoftwa.html Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missi ng data: Our view of th e state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7 147-177. Schmitt, D. P. (2006). Evolutionary and cross-cu ltural perspectives on love: The influence of gender, personality, and local ecology on emoti onal investment in romantic relationships. In R. J. Sternberg & K. Weis (Eds.) The new psychology of love (pp. 249-273). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Singelis, T., Choo, P., & Hatfield, E. ( 1995). Love schemas and romantic love. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10 15-36. Sprecher, S. (2002). Sexual satisfaction in premarital relationships : Associations with satisfaction, love, commitment, and stab ility. Journal of Sex Research, 39, 190-196. Sprecher, S. (2006). Sexuality in close relationships. In P. Noller & J. A. Feeney (Eds.) Close relationships: Functions, forms and processes (pp.267-284). Hove, England: Psychology press/Taylor and Francis (UK). Steck, L., Levitan, D., McLane, D., & Kelley, H. (1982). Care, need, and conceptions of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43 481-491. Steffen, J. J., McLaney, M. A., & Hustedt, T. K. (1982). The development of a measure of limerence Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C. Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The triangle of love New York: Basic Books. 85

PAGE 86

Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Construct valid ation of a triangular love scale. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27 313-335. Sternberg, R. J. (2006). A duplex theory of l ove. In R. J. Sternberg & K. Weis (Eds.) The new psychology of love (pp. 184-199). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Sternberg, R. J. & Beall, A. E. (1991). How can we know what love is? An epistemological analysis. In G. J. O. Fletcher & F. D. Fincham (Eds.) Cognition and close relationships (pp. 257-278). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Sternberg, R. J., Hojjat, M., & Barnes, M. L. (20 01). Empirical aspects of a theory of love as a story. European Journal of Personality, 15, 1-20. Sternberg, R. J., & Grajek, S. (1984). The nature of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 312-329. Swensen, C. H., (1972). The behavior of love. In H. A. Otto (Ed.), Love today (pp. 86-101). New York: Association Press. Swensen, C. H., Nelson, M. K., Waner, J. & Dunlap, D. (1992). Scale of fee lings and behavior of love: Revised. In L. Vandecreek, S. Knapp, & T. L. Jackson (Eds.) Innovations in clinical practice: A source book: Vol. 11 (pp. 303-314). Sarasota, FL : Professional Resource Press. Tannen, D. (2007). You just dont understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: Harper Paperbacks. Thibaut, J.W., & Kelley, H.H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley. Tiegs, T. J., & Heesacker, M. (2005, August). Bu t Im different: Testing the accuracy of sex stereotypes. Poster presen ted at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. Tiegs, T. J., Heesacker, M., Timothy U. Kette rson, T. U., Pekich, D. G., Rittman, M. R., Rosenbek, J. C., Stidham, B. S., & Gonzalez-Rothi, L. (2006). Coping by Stroke Caregivers: Sex Similarities and Differences. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 13 52-62. Tiegs, T. J., Todd, B., Smith, M. B., Cawood, R. L ., Samson, A. W., LaBarge, D., Perrin, P. B., Mejia-Millan, C. M., & Hees acker, M. (2008). The Desire d Loving Behaviors Scale: Validity and Reliability. Manuscript in Progress. University of Florida. West, C. E. (2005). Clinical utility and validation of the Couples Communicative Evaluation Scale. Psychological Reports, 97 599-622. 86

PAGE 87

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Tom Tiegs was born and raised in Minnesota, but he got to Florida as quickly as he could. He received his undergraduate degree in psychology from the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota. He receive d his Masters degree in psychology from the University of Florida and is completing this dissertation to receive his Ph.D. from that same hallowed institution. He married Sara h Gervais and has since moved around the country with her in order to complete their degrees together and to find actual jobs. They are now moving to Nebraska, but they hope to one day return to the Sunshine State and Gatorville. 87