what is love: further investigation of love acts

Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology www.jsecjournal.org org - 2009, 3(4), 290-304. www.jsecjournal.com Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Meeting of the NorthEastern Evolutionary Psychology Society

Original Article

WHAT IS LOVE: FURTHER INVESTIGATION OF LOVE ACTS T. Joel Wade* Department of Psychology, Bucknell University Gretchen Auer Department of Psychology, Bucknell University Tanya M. Roth Department of Psychology, Bucknell University

Abstract To determine whether or not love acts have changed since Buss first examined them in (1988) and to determine which love acts are perceived as most effective, three studies were implemented. Studies 1 and 2 presented questionnaires to college undergraduates. Study 3 used an internet based questionnaire and included college undergraduates and individuals from other environments. Study 1 (n =81) sought to ascertain the actions that men and women engage in to indicate love to a partner. Men and women’s love acts were expected to differ. Study 2 (n = 80) sought to ascertain which love acts are considered the most prototypical love acts. The most prominent love acts were expected to be rated as the most prototypical love acts. Study 3 (n = 137) sought to determine which actions are rated as the most effective love acts. The most prototypical love acts from Study 2 were expected to be rated as most effective by both sexes. The results were consistent with the hypotheses. These findings are discussed in terms of prior research. Keywords: evolution of love, romantic commitment, mate selection, exclusivity, love acts

Love is a very powerful emotion (Fisher, 1992) that can be a positive influence in many areas of life. For example, Aron, Paris, and Aron (1995) report that falling in love leads to higher self-esteem and self-efficacy. Also, mutual love is a vital prerequisite for selecting a mate (Buss, 1988; Hill, 1945; Hudson & Henze, 1969; McGinnis, 1958). Love is also complex, and exists in different forms. One type of love is passionate love. This form of love causes an individual to erotically idealize another individual with the idea that this feeling will not end (Jankowiak & Paladino, 2008; Fisher, 1992, 2004 ). AUTHOR NOTE: Please direct correspondence to: T. Joel Wade, Department of Psychology, Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA 17837. Email: [email protected] ©2009 Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology

290

Love Acts

This type of love facilitates our identification of potential long-term mates (Fisher, Aron, Mashek, Li, & Brown 2002). Not surprisingly then, this type of love is universal (Brown, 1992; Jankowiak & Paladino, 2008). The second type of love is known as romantic love, or as Jankowiak and Paladino (2008) call it, comfort love. This type of love involves feelings of friendship, understanding, and concern for the welfare of another person (Harvey & Wenzel, 2001; Hatfield & Rapson, 1996; Jankowiak & Paladino, 2008). This type of love is also universal (Fisher 2004; Jankowiak & Paladino, 2008). In fact, Jankowiak and Paladino (2008) report that 151 of 166 different cultures examined all show evidence of love. Similarly, Fisher (2004) reports that love is a universal experience. In addition to being universal, passionate and romantic love share a common neural mechanism (Bartels & Zeki, 2004) and each also has a discrete constellation of neural correlates (Fisher, 1998) . Thus, Jankowiak and Paladino (2008) report that we are neurologically oriented to fall in love. Fisher (1992) reports that love is a very old emotion. It is said to have arisen about 1.8 million years ago (Fuentes, 2002). It evolved out of our need to bond with one another in order to increase our ability to survive, and to direct aspects of reproduction (Buss, 1988a; Fisher 1998). Harlow and Zimmerman’s (1959) research and Bowlby’s (1982) research show direct evidence of how love leads to increased survival. Specifically, that research indicates that being attached to another individual increases one’s ability to survive and thrive. Additionally, humans also evolved the propensity to experience romantic love in order to get and maintain a commitment from a mate (Jankowiak & Fisher, 1992). Fisher (2004) reports that love evolved for men to become strongly attached to women so that they stayed around while women were raising their children. Keeping men around was very important since women were less able to take part in some activities related to their survival and their child’s survival since women were the primary caregivers for the children. These attached men assisted women with food gathering, shelter location, protection, and the imparting of life skills to offspring (Fisher 2004). Also, becoming attached enhanced one’s ability to have a genetic legacy. Fisher (1992) points out that surviving the pull of attachment long enough to raise a child through infancy nurtured one’s own DNA. Thus, not surprisingly then, researchers have found that men and women express romantic love with the same intensity (Fisher, et al., 2002; Hatfield & Rapson, 1996; Tennov, 1979). Additionally, Jankowiak and Paladino (2008) report that men and women are united in the meaning and purpose of love. Furthermore, recent neurobiological research shows that the levels of estradiol, progesterone, DHEAS, and androstenedione do not differ significantly between men and women in love (Marazziti & Canale, 2004). However, from an evolutionary perspective men and women would not be expected to engage in the same love acts since men and women have different parental investment concerns when it comes to mate selection (Trivers, 1972). Men seek a parental investment from women that is primarily physical. Specifically, reproductive fitness concerns for men center around future offspring production. Men were and are faced with finding the best possible mates to bear their offspring (Buss 1989, Trivers, 1972). Reproductive fitness concerns among women center around securing good genes and a strong parental investment at the financial level (Buss, 1989; Trivers, 1972). Women were and are concerned with finding men that are most willing and best able to genetically and financially invest in their offspring (Buss, 1989). Additionally, men and Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology – ISSN 1933-5377 – Volume 3 (4). 2009.

291

Love Acts

women display different assets in order to obtain mates. Men display assets that indicate status and good genes while women display assets that indicate fertility and successful mothering potential (Buss, 1988b; Buss & Dedden, 1990). With this in mind, it is not surprising that Buss (1988a) found seven love act goals that men and women express differently: resource display, exclusivity, commitment, sexual intimacy, reproduction, resource sharing, and parental investment. With respect to resource displays, a man tries to prove his status and financial abilities to his partner, which alerts his partner to his ability to provide for future offspring (Buss, 1988a). Conversely, a woman goes out of her way to dress up and look nice for her partner. By doing so, she is displaying her beauty, youthfulness, and health, which are all factors and determinants of a reproductively valuable female (Buss, 1988a). Therefore, the resource a woman displays is her ability to produce offspring. According to Buss (1988a), love acts related to exclusivity have two main purposes, (1) ensuring high confidence in paternity and (2) ensuring mutual commitment to the reproducing pair. An example of a love act for this category includes “never cheating on one another” (Buss, 1988a). Exclusivity also occurs in two different forms, fidelity and mate guarding, that mutually occur for both sexes (Buss, 1988a). The forms mutually occur because each individual has her or his own investment in the relationship that has to be protected. Not unexpectedly then, female infidelity of a sexual nature is forgiven much less often than male sexual infidelity (Shackelford, Buss, & Bennett 2002). This sex difference occurs because not only is it embarrassing for a male’s masculinity for his partner to sexually cheat on him, but also the chance of taking care of another male’s offspring increases. On the other hand, male sexual infidelity is not looked down upon in the same way. Furthermore, if the infidelity on the part of the man involves casual sex and does not include a serious love involvement, it is generally more easily forgiven (Shackelford, Buss, & Bennett, 2002). One method that can be used for ensuring commitment is marriage. With this in mind, Buss (1988a) points out that one of the main goals of a love act is marriage. Marriage can be considered an enforced case of exclusivity since it involves a public ceremony, which includes vows, a marriage certificate, and sometimes an expression of religious views. In addition to sanctioning exclusivity, marriage also ensures the providence of resources, including offspring and financial resources (Buss, 1988a). The love act goal of sexual intimacy has the tendency, especially given the present culture, to occur both before and after marriage according to Buss (1998a). Sexual intimacy represents an important love act because women have the upper hand in the interaction. Buss (1988a) points out that women do not need to depend on sexual intercourse to become pregnant, because of other available options, such as a sperm bank, whereas it is a necessity for men to have sexual intercourse in order to reproduce. Therefore, a married couple that does not plan to reproduce, and an unmarried couple, must engage in sexual intimacy with care and risk because sexual intimacy can result in the conception of an offspring. Reproduction of an offspring is the underlying goal of the four aforementioned love act goals (Buss 1988a). Love acts involved in reproduction do not occur solely with the conception or birth of an offspring. They occur throughout the nine-month pregnancy. The woman has to remain healthy throughout the nine-month period and protect the baby, while the man must continue to provide for his partner and their future child. This may Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology – ISSN 1933-5377 – Volume 3 (4). 2009.

292

Love Acts

be accomplished through providing meals, pampering, or protection from harmful environments or individuals (Buss, 1988a). The love acts goal of resource sharing is an act that has historically been performed by the man in the relationship, just like sexual intimacy and reproduction can be viewed as the primary act promised by the woman in the relationship (Buss 1988a). Resource sharing includes financial support, which incorporates money, food, and shelter, not only for the woman, but more importantly for the offspring, because this is an important factor in the offspring’s survival and future success. This love act goal is also consistent with the cooperative breeding model. Hrdy (2008) points out that humans must have evolved as cooperative breeders, with many family members caring for offspring, as this would better allow infant offspring to obtain the resources needed for survival. So, cooperative breeding intentions play a role in love acts also. Buss’s (1988a) love acts goal of parental investment involves caring for children. Following the birth of a child, the child must be continually fed, nurtured, protected, taught, and loved. A parent’s love for his or her child is supposed to be unconditional; however, it is still a hard and ever-conscious act that must be performed daily. The aforesaid information is interesting and illuminating. However, evolutionary adaptations can be the product of environmental demands (Buss, 1995; Crawford & Anderson, 1985) and environments change. Therefore, even though love acts evolved to serve reproductive functions (Buss, 1988a; Fisher 2004) and to engender a commitment (Jankowiak & Fisher 1992) from a partner, it is possible that the love acts men and women engage in have changed. However, recent research has not examined this. Additionally, while prior research did identify the love acts that men and women engage in, an investigation of which love acts are perceived as most effective for men and women has not been conducted. This void should be filled. We know: how individuals go about attracting mates (see Bale, Morrison & Caryl, 2007; Buss, 1988b; Buss, & Dedden, 1990; Renninger, Wade, & Grammer, 2004; Wade, Butrie, & Hoffman, 2009), why love evolved (Buss, 1988a; Fisher, 2004; Jankowiak & Fisher, 1992), and how love is manifested in the brain (Bartels & Zeki, 2000; Fisher, et al., 2002). So, it behooves us to know which actions are considered the most effective love acts. This information can potentially enhance researchers’ knowledge regarding what individuals do to secure and maintain a commitment from their mates since individuals tend to remain with partners who indicate that they are committed to them (Buss & Shackelford, 1997). Buss (1988a) supports the aforesaid suggestion regarding conducting additional research examining love acts. He stated that his findings “should be regarded as tentative, awaiting replication in other samples and with other methods” (Buss, 1988a, p.115). Thus, the current research was implemented. Specifically, the present research sought to examine the aforesaid issues with 3 studies. Study 1 sought to ascertain what love acts are performed by men and women. Study 2 sought to ascertain which love acts are rated as most prototypical, and Study 3 sought to ascertain which love acts are perceived as most effective. Hypotheses For Study 1, men and women’s love acts were expected to differ. Specifically, men were expected to nominate more acts involving resource displays while women were expected to more often nominate acts related to reproductive fitness and sexual access. For Study 2, the most frequently nominated love acts from study one were expected to be Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology – ISSN 1933-5377 – Volume 3 (4). 2009.

293

Love Acts

rated as the most prototypical love acts. For Study 3, the most prototypical love acts from Study 2 were expected to be rated as most effective by both sexes. Study 1 Methods Participants Participants were 40 men and 41 women from a private University in the Northeastern United States, ranging in age from 18-22, M = 20.07, SD = 1.32. The sample was 83% White, 10% Black, 2% Asian, 4% Hispanic, and 1 % Other. Participants were recruited from the introductory psychology class and from locations on campus. Participants from the introductory psychology class’ participation was in partial fulfillment of research participation requirements associated with the course. This study was approved by the University’s Institutional Review Board. Procedure Participants received a questionnaire that included demographic questions regarding: age, sex, sexual orientation, sexual history, relationship status, medication use, and birthcontrol use. The next page of the questionnaire contained the following instructions from Buss’s (1988a) research and 5 numbered blanks: Please think of people you know of your own gender (sex) who have been or are currently in love. With these individuals in mind, write down five acts or behaviors that they have performed (or might perform) that reflect or exemplify their love. Be sure to write down acts or behaviors. An act is something that a person does or did, not something that they are. Do not say “he is infatuated” or“she is love-struck.” These are not behaviors. You should describe acts or behaviors that someone could read and answer the questions: “Did you ever do this?” and “How often have you done this?”

Results Overall, there were 114 love acts nominated. However, many of the acts were very similar in description, duplicative, too vague, or only listed by one of the 81 participants. Thus, the 114 acts were narrowed down to 43 acts, see Table 1. Acts exemplifying many of the categories identified in Buss’s (1988) research were nominated. For example, the act “he never cheated or came close to cheating on her” illustrates Exclusivity: Fidelity and Mate Guarding. The acts “he shares emotional or deep feelings and secrets with his partner”, “they are not afraid to be completely honest with one another”, and “they support and advise on another” demonstrate Mutual Support and Protection. Finally, the Commitment and Marriage goal is exemplified by the acts: “he proposed marriage to her”, “they got married”, “she verbally expressed her love by saying ‘I love you’”, and “they moved in together”. Also, similar to the Buss’s (1988) findings, a theme of mutual support emerged that was not anticipated based on parental investment concerns and mate preferences. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology – ISSN 1933-5377 – Volume 3 (4). 2009.

294

Love Acts

Examples of the top love acts reported were “they had sex”, “he gave or purchased flowers for her”, “he gave her a gift”, “he took her out to dinner”, “she verbally expressed her love by saying ‘I love you’”, “she was comfortable displaying her affection for him in public”, and “they held hands.” Table 1. Consensus Nominated Love Acts 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43.

Love Act Nominated He gave or purchased flowers for her. She purchased an expensive gift (i.e. tickets to a sporting event, jewelry). He gave her a gift. They went away for a few days or on a vacation together. He took her out to dinner. They went on a date together (i.e. movies, concert, miniature golf). She was comfortable displaying her affection for him in public (i.e. kissing, hugging, holding hands). He never cheated or came close to cheating on her. He spent more time with her than his friends. They would hang out soberly with another more often than not sober. They spent a lot of time together. She would prioritize him over other activities, often giving something up for him. He shares emotional or deep feelings and secrets with his partner. They are not afraid to be completely honest with one another. He complimented her appearance. She gives him all or most of her attention while out in public. They talk to one another a lot. He would make sacrifices and extra time for her. She would help him (i.e. homework, cleaning). She skipped class or stayed in at night to take care of him while he was sick. They support and advise one another. He proposed marriage to her. They got married. They had sex. He performed oral sex on her. She performed sexual acts for him. He kissed her. They held hands. She hugged him. He was annoying and playfully picked on her. She made him dinner. He traveled a long distance to see her. He sang/serenaded her. She verbally expressed her love by saying “I love you”. He rubbed her back. He acted differently around his friends, when she was around. She commuted a distance to make the relationship work. He called her and they had an extended conversation on the phone. They cuddled in bed or while watching TV. They moved in together. He wrote notes and letters to her. He gazed into her eyes and kept a lot of eye contact. She met his family.

Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology – ISSN 1933-5377 – Volume 3 (4). 2009.

295

Love Acts

The types of acts nominated also differed across the sexes. Men nominated actions that involved resource displays (11% for men versus 5% for women) while women nominated acts that displayed their commitment or exclusivity (15% for women versus 13% for men), and acts related to reproductive value (10 % for women versus 7% for men). Examples of nominated resource display acts were: “buying her an expensive gift” or “taking her out to dinner”. Examples of nominated exclusivity acts were: “she was comfortable displaying her affection for him in public”, “they held hands,” and “she verbally expressed her love by saying ‘I love you’”. Examples of nominated reproductive value acts were: “they had sex” and “she performed sexual acts for him.” Discussion The findings obtained in Study 1 were consistent with the hypotheses. Men nominated more love acts that involve resource display while women more often nominated love acts that relate to displaying their reproductive value, consistent with Buss’s (1988a) findings, and consistent with parental investment theory (Trivers, 1972). These findings suggest that culture may not have altered the adaptations that men and women make to indicate to their partners that they love them. Some might consider this surprising since women’s attitudes and behaviors regarding sex and relationships have changed. Women are more similar to men with respect to relationships and sex today. For example, Wade, et al., (2009) point out that women today do not sit back and wait for men to initiate relationships. Similarly, Meston and Buss (2007) point out that women and men engage in sex for some of the same reasons. However, when it comes to thinking of actions that are indicative of love, men and women still differ in evolutionarily predicted ways. This information is interesting since it allows one to conclude that men and women’s love acts have not changed in 21 years, consistent with evolutionary theory. Apparently, to ensure future survival, the evolutionary environment still demands that men and women express their love using different actions. However, while these, findings are interesting, they do not indicate which of the nominated love acts are considered most prototypical. Therefore, to determine which of the 43 love acts were considered most prototypical, Study 2 was conducted. Since love acts related to resource display, reproductive value, and exclusivity were the most frequently nominated love acts in Study 1, it was hypothesized that these actions would be rated as the most prototypical love acts. Study 2 Method Participants Participants were 40 men and 40 women ranging in age from 18-22, M = 20.09, SD = 1.21, from a private University in the Northeastern US. The sample was 85% White, 4% Black, 5% Asian, and 6% Other. As in Study 1, participants were recruited from the introductory psychology class and from locations on campus. Participants from the introductory psychology class’ participation was in partial fulfillment of research Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology – ISSN 1933-5377 – Volume 3 (4). 2009.

296

Love Acts

participation requirements associated with the course. No participants from Study 1 took part in Study 2. This study was approved by the University’s Institutional Review Board. Procedure Participants received a questionnaire that included demographic questions regarding: age, sex, sexual orientation, sexual history, relationship status, medication use, and birth-control use. The next page of the questionnaire contained the following instructions from Buss (1988a): This study has to do with what we have in mind when we use words that refer to categories. Let’s take the word red as an example. Close your eyes and imagine a true red. Now imagine an orangish red...imagine a purple red. Although you might still name the orange-red or the purple-red with the term red, they are not as good examples of red (as clear cases of what red refers to) as the clear “true” red. In short, some reds are “redder” than others. In this specific study you are asked to judge how good an example of a category various instances of the category are. The category is LOVE. Below are listed 43 acts. You are to rate how good an example of that category each act is on a 7-point scale. A “7” means that you feel the act is a very good example of your idea of what LOVE is; a “1” means you feel the act fits very poorly your idea of what LOVE is (or is not a member of the category at all). A “4” means that you feel the act fits moderately well. Use the other numbers to indicate intermediate judgments.

Results A 2(Sex of Participant) x 43(Love acts) Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANOVA was computed. The ANOVA revealed a significant effect for love acts being rated, F(33, 42) = 30.13, p< .0001. Comparisons of the means for the love acts with Bonferroni corrections revealed that the love acts: “they got married” “he proposed marriage” “he shares emotional feelings”, “they are not afraid to be completely honest”, “she said I love you”, “they moved in together”, “he never cheated on her”, and “they support and advise one another” were rated as the most prototypical acts of love, see Table 2. Also, the 2(Sex of Participant) x 43(Love acts) Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANOVA revealed an interaction of sex of participant and love acts being rated, F(33, 42) = 1.78, p< .05. Women rated “they moved in together” as a more prototypical act of love than men did (t(78) = -3.96, p< .0001), (M = 6.28, SD = .64 and M = 5.35, SD = 1.33 for women and men respectively). Additional Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANOVAs were computed across sexual relationship experience, current relationship status, sex of participant, and across birth control usage for women. No significant effects were obtained.


297

Love Acts

Table 2. Mean Perceived Prototypicality of Love Acts Love Act Mean Love Act Mean (a) They got married 6.46(.99) She took care of him when he was ill 5.11abc(1.03) (b) He proposed 6.17(1.31) They Cuddled in Bed 4.39abcd(1.12) (c) He shares his feelings 6.16(.82) She purchased expensive gift for him 3.82abcdefgh(1.31) (d) They are not afraid to be 6.08(1.09) He gave her a gift 3.82abcdefgh(1.31) completely honest (e) She said I love you 5.79(1.15) He maintained eye contact with her 4.92abc(1.51) (f) They moved in together 5.79(1.15) He took her out to dinner 3.72abcdefgh(1.28) (g) He never cheated 5.71(1.36) They had sex 3.63abcdefgh(1.57) (h) They support/advise one 5.58(.98) He gave her oral sex 3.04abcdefgh(1.53) one another He purchased flowers 3.84abcdefgh(1.12) She performed sexual acts for him 3.12abcdefgh(1.52) abd They went away together for a 5.00 (1.32) They held hands 3.47abcdefgh(1.52) few days They went on a date 3.57abcdefgh(1.29) She hugged him 2.68abcdefgh(1.44) abcd She’s comfortable with PDA 4.87 (1.35) They spent a lot of time together 4.80acdh(1.23) for him He kissed her 3.05abcdefgh(1.48) He annoyingly and playfully teased her 2.63abcdefgh(1.19) abcdfg They spent more time together 4.84 (1.36) She prioritized him over others 4.92abcdef(1.30) than with friends They spend more time together 4.37abcdfg(1.38) She made dinner for him 3.93abcdefgh(1.17) sober than not sober He traveled a long distance 5.34abc(.90) He gave her a backrub 3.86abcdefgh(1.28) to see her He serenaded her 4.34abcdefgh(1.36) He acted differently with friends 3.11abcdefgh(1.27) abcdefgh He complimented her looks 3.29 (1.49) She commuted a distance to see him 5.20ab(1.19) abcdefg She gives him most of her 4.09 (1.21) He had extended phone call with her 4.13abcdefgh(1.30) attention in public They talk on the phone a lot 4.38abcdefgh(1.49) He wrote notes and letters to her 5.04abcd(1.15) acef He sacrifices for her 5.21 (1.01) She met his family 4.82abcd(1.21) abcdefgh She would help him 3.93 (1.30) Standard deviations are in parentheses. Higher numbers mean the particular love act was perceived as more prototypical. Superscripts denote significant differences, p< .05, e.g. mean for row a, “They got married”, is significantly different from means for rows that have an ‘a’ in their superscript, etc.. Comparisons of all 43 means are not included in the table.

Discussion The results were partially consistent with the hypotheses. Love acts related to exclusivity were rated as the most prototypical love acts. However, surprisingly, love acts related to displaying reproductive value, and love acts related to resource display were not rated as most prototypical love acts. Exclusivity acts may be considered more prototypical acts of love because they signify attachment and attachment is a key feature of romantic love (Fisher 2004; Jankowiak & Paladino, 2008). Unexpectedly, women may have rated moving in together as a more prototypical act of love than men did because women view this action as more similar to marriage than men do. However, while this explanation is provocative, additional research is needed to verify its veracity. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology – ISSN 1933-5377 – Volume 3 (4). 2009.

298

Love Acts

Reproductive value actions may not have been rated as most prototypical due to the nature of the sample. The sample was comprised of college students and college students can use a sexual strategy focused on very short-term sexual relationships, i.e., hookups (Garcia & Reiber, 2008). With a high frequency of sex taking place, individuals may feel that sex cannot be effectively used to display reproductive value if very few individuals in the environment are chaste. With everyone having sex with others frequently, it may be especially hard to display reproductive value using sexual behavior. If everyone is very sexually accessible, intrasexual competition centered around sex may be very intense, i.e., most all women are displaying an aspect of reproductive fitness, i.e., sexual accessibility. So, it makes it hard to compete. Thus, sex is not perceived as a prototypical way to show love to a partner. Resource display actions may not be among the most prototypical love actions because such actions do not necessarily indicate a long-term commitment. This may also be due to the nature of the sample. Once again, since the sample was of college age and college aged men and women can use a sexual strategy focused on frequent short-term mating, i.e., hookups (Garcia & Reiber, 2008), individuals may not be thinking about love in relation to very long-term commitments. Overall, the acts that were rated as most prototypical may have been rated this way because they exemplify mutual support, commitment and exclusivity. Participants seem to be indicating that they feel love and attachment is really exemplified by these types of actions. Engaging in these types of actions may be the most effective way to show a partner that she or he is loved. But, this cannot be directly ascertained from the data obtained. So, to determine which of the 43 love acts are perceived as most effective Study 3 was conducted. Since exclusivity actions were rated as most prototypical, such actions were expected to be rated as the most effective love acts. Study 3 Method Participants Participants were 45 men and 92 women, ranging in age range from 18-72, M= 24.86 SD = 9.76. The sample was: 83% White, 7% Black, 2% Asian, 5% Hispanic, and 3% Other. Seventy of the participants were from the Introduction to Psychology course from a private University in the Northeastern United States. Their participation was in partial fulfillment of the course requirements. The other 84 participants were recruited via internet listservs. All participants took part in the research via the internet. This study was approved by the University’s Institutional Review Board. Procedure A questionnaire was posted via the internet that included the demographic questions: age, race, sex, sexual experience, relationship status, sexual orientation, medication use, and birth control use. The questionnaire also listed the 43 different love acts from Study 1 and the following instructions:


299

Love Acts

Below are listed acts that someone might perform to show their partner that they love them. In this study, we are interested in how effective you think each act is at achieving this goal. Please read each act carefully, and think about its consequences. Then rate each act in terms of how likely the act is to be effective at showing/communicating love to a partner using a 1= not very effective to 7 = very effective scale.

Results A 2(Sex of participant) x 43(Love acts) Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANOVA was computed. The ANOVA revealed a significant effect for love acts being rated, F(42, 94) = 22.44, p< .0001. Comparisons of the means with Bonferroni corrections revealed that the love acts: “they got married”, “he proposed”, “ he shares his emotional feelings with her”, “they are not afraid to be completely honest with one another”, “he never cheated”, “they support and advise one another”, “they moved in together”, and “she said I love you” were rated as most effective, see Table 3. Additional Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANOVAs across love acts being rated and: age, sexual relationship experience, current relationship status, and across birth control usage for women were computed also. No other significant effects occurred. Discussion Consistent with the hypothesis, love acts exemplifying exclusivity were rated as the most effective way to show a partner that one loves him or her. Specifically, the acts: “they got married”, “he proposed”, “he shares his emotional feelings with her”, “they are not afraid to be completely honest with one another”, “he never cheated”, “they support and advise one another”, “they moved in together”, and “she said I love you” were rated as most effective. These actions may have been perceived as most effective because they were also considered to be very exemplary/prototypical acts of love. Engaging in an action that most exemplifies a feeling/quality may be the best way to show a partner that one feels that way about him or her. Additionally, these acts may have been rated as most effective because they seem to imply attachment and commitment to a partner. Attachment and commitment are very important for relationships and survival. Fisher (2004) and Jankowiak and Paladino (2008) report that attachment is a key aspect of love and can enhance one’s survival. Also, Buss and Shackelford (1997) report that individuals are more likely to retain mates that are committed to them. Thus, these types of love acts are rated as most effective ways to show a partner that he or she is loved. These acts also directly exemplify one of the goals of love acts previously identified by Buss (1988a). Specifically, these acts exemplify the love act goal of marriage/exclusivity. The other love act goals, sexual intimacy, reproduction, and parental investment were not exemplified in this study. This suggests that marriage/exclusivity may be the most important love act goal. However, additional research is needed to determine if this conclusion is accurate since this was not the focus of the present research.


300

Love Acts

Table 3. Mean Perceived Effectiveness of Love Acts Love Act Mean Love Act Mean (a) They got married 6.46(1.05) She took care of him when he was ill 5.45abcde(1.26) (b) He proposed 6.36(1.05) They Cuddled in Bed 4.78abcdefgh(1.35) (c) He shares his feelings 6.35(.85) She purchased expensive gift for him 4.42abcdefgh(1.34) (d) They are not afraid to be 6.30(.93) He gave her a gift 4.43abcdefgh(1.12) completely honest (e) He never cheated 5.87ac(1.60) He maintained eye contact with her 5. 24abcdg(1.43) abcde (f) They support/advise one 5.80 (1.18) He took her out to dinner 4.12abcdefgh(1.35) one another (g) They moved in together 5.65abcde(1.12) They had sex 4.07abcdefgh(1.83) abcd (h)She said I love you 5.58 (.98) He gave her oral sex 3.93abcdefgh(1.71) abcdefgh He purchased flowers 4.55 (1.24) She performed sexual acts for him 3.80abcdefgh(1.71) abcd They went away together for a 5.48 (1.17) They held hands 3.88abcdefgh(1.52) few days They went on a date 4.05abcdefgh(1.44) She hugged him 3.32abcdefgh(1.69) abcdef She’s comfortable with PDA 5.15 (1.33) They spent a lot of time together 5.19abcdef(1.23) for him He kissed her 3.80abcdefgh(1.56) He annoyingly and playfully teased her 3.07abcdefgh(1.45) abcdefg They spent more time together 4.96 (1.42) She prioritized him over others 5.07abcde(1.31) than with friends They spend more time together 4.87abcdefgh(1.51) She made dinner for him 4.47abcdefgh(1.17) sober than not sober He traveled a long distance 5.39abcd(1.00) He gave her a backrub 3.94abcdefgh(1.58) to see her He serenaded her 4.85abcdefh(1.36) He acted differently with friends 3.03abcdefgh(1.44) abcdefgh He complimented her looks 3.97 (1.40) She commuted a distance to see him 5.20abcd(1.18) abcdefgh She gives him most of her 4.63 (1.23) He had extended phone call with her 4.36abcdefgh(1.39) attention in public They talk on the phone a lot 4.93abcdefgh(1.39) He wrote notes and letters to her 5.25abcd(1.35) abcd He sacrifices for her 5.55 (1.16) She met his family 5.15abcdefg(1.24) abcdefgh She would help him 4.66 (1.28) Standard deviations are in parentheses. Higher numbers mean the particular love act was perceived as more effective. Superscripts denote significant differences, p< .05, e.g. mean for row a, “they got married”, is significantly different from means for rows that have an ‘a’ in their superscript, etc.. Comparisons of all 43 means are not included in the table.

General Discussion The present research replicated Buss’s (1988a) findings. Many of the love acts identified by Buss (1988a) continue to be listed as acts of love 21 years later. This is not surprising. Evolutionary biology plays a role in love and relationships, and love evolved in order to get and maintain a commitment, increasing one’s reproductive success (Fisher, 2004; Jankowiak & Fisher, 1992; Jankowiak & Paladino, 2008). If these acts have a biological motivation behind them such that they sustain and enhance relationships, and bring forth survival benefits, then the acts should continue to exist until the mating environment demands new actions to sustain relationships and bring forth survival benefits.


301

Love Acts

The present research also extended Buss’s (1988a) findings showing that, overall, participants rated acts that displayed mutual support, commitment, marriage and exclusivity, and fidelity, among the most effective love acts. This is not surprising since these actions can facilitate mate retention (Buss & Shackelford 1997), and since these actions play important roles in relationships, and love (Fisher, 1998, 2004; Jankowiak & Paladino, 2008). The three studies together show, that men and women differ somewhat with regards to the actions they nominate as love acts, and that love acts that reflect exclusivity are considered most prototypical and most effective love acts. Reproductive value actions are not considered very prototypical or very effective love acts, contrary to prior research and evolutionary theory. Since evolutionary adaptations can be altered by the environment (Buss, 1995; Crawford & Andersen, 1989), and sexual attitudes have changed (Meston & Buss, 2007; Wade, et al., 2009), it is possible that reproductive value actions are no longer adaptive with respect to indicating love. Perhaps such actions are most important for mate selection now rather than also being important for securing and preserving a commitment. Recent research supports this conclusion. Wade, Palmer, DiMaria, Johnson, and Multack (2008) report that an individual is more likely to terminate a relationship due to a lack of emotional access rather than due to a lack of sexual access. Limitations Studies 1 and 2 used college students between the ages of 18 and 22. Therefore, one might conclude that the external validity of the findings from these studies is limited. However, study 3 used a much larger age range, 18-72, and included college as well as non-college students and the findings from Study 3 were consistent with the Study 2 findings. Additionally, we found no significant effects for age. Nevertheless, future research should be implemented where the love acts are nominated by an older population and then rated for prototypicality by both older and younger populations. Additionally, future research should include samples comprised of different races and cultures to see if the findings hold across cultures. Lastly, since passionate and romantic love are somewhat different and involve some discrete neurology (Bartels & Zeki, 2004; Fisher, 1998, 2004; Fisher, et, al., 2002), future research should also investigate whether or not the love acts nominated and rated as most prototypical and effective for passionate and romantic love differ.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the Editors and anonymous Reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this manuscript. Received August 15, 2009; Revision received December 10, 2009; Accepted December 18, 2009


302

Love Acts

References Aron, A., Paris, M., & Aron, E. (1995). Falling in love: Studies of self-concept change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(6), 1102-1112. Bale, C., Morrison, R., & Caryl, P.G. (2006). Chat-up lines as male sexual displays. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 655-664. Bartels , A., & Zeki, S. (2004). The neural correlates of maternal and passionate love. Neuroimage, 21, 1155-1166. Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment. New York: Basic Books. Brown, D. Human universals. New York: Basic Books. Buss, D. M. (1995). Psychological sex differences: Origins through sexual selection. American Psychologist, 50(3), 164-168. Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49. Buss, D. M., (1988a). Love acts: The evolutionary biology of love. In Sternberg, Robert J. and Barnes, Michael L. (Eds.). The psychology of love. (pp. 100-118). New Haven, CT, US: Yale University Press. Buss, D. M. (1988b). The evolution of human intrasexual competition: Tactics of mate attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4), 616-628. Buss, D. M., & Dedden, L. A. (1990). Derogation of competitors. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 395-422. Crawford, C. B., & Anderson, J. L. (1989). Sociobiology: An environmental discipline? American Psychologist, 44, 1449-1459. Fisher, H.E. (1992). Anatomy of love: The natural history of monogamy, adultery, and divorce. New York: Norton and Company. Fisher, H. E. (1998). Lust, attraction, and attachment in mammalian reproduction. Human Nature, 9(1), 23-52. Fisher, H.E. (2004). Why we love: The nature and chemistry of romantic love. New York: Henry Holt. Fisher, H., Aron, A., Mashek, D., Li, H., & Brown, L. (2002). Defining the brain systems of lust, romantic attraction, and attachment. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 31, 413-419. Fuentes, A. (2002). Patterns and trends in primate pair bond. International Journal of Primatology, 23(5), 953-978. Garcia, J. R. & Reiber, C. (2008). Hook-up Behavior: A biopsychosocial perspective. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 192-208. Harlow, H., & Zimmerman, R. R. (1959). Affectionate responses in the infant monkey. Science, 130, 421-32. Harvey, J., & Wenzel, A. (2001). Close romantic relationships: Maintenance and enhancement. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R. L. (1996). Love and sex: Cross cultural perspectives. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Hill, R. (1945). Campus values in mate selection. Journal of Home Economics, 37, 554558. Hrdy, S. B. (2008). Evolutionary context of human development: The cooperative breeding hypothesis. In Salmon, C. and Shackelford, T. (Eds.). The evolutionary psychology of the family, (pp. 39–68). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology – ISSN 1933-5377 – Volume 3 (4). 2009.

303

Love Acts

Hudson, J. W., & & Henze, L. P. (1969). Campus values in mate selection: A replication. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 31, 772-775. Jankowiak, W. R., & Fisher, E. F. (1992). Romantic love: A cross-cultural perspective. Ethnology, 149-156. Jankowiak ,W., & Paladino, T. (2008). Desiring sex, longing for love: A tripartite conundrum. In Jankowiak, W. (Ed.). Intimacies: Love and sex across cultures. (pp. 1-36). New York: Columbia University Press. Marazziti, D., & Canale, D. (2003). Hormonal changes when falling in love. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 29, 931-936. McGinnis, R. (1958). Campus values in mate selection. Social Forces, 36, 368-373. Meston, C.M. & Buss, D.M. (2007) Why humans have sex. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 477-507. Renninger, L.A., Wade, J.T., & Grammer, K. (2004). Getting that female glance: Patterns and consequences of male nonverbal behavior in courtship contexts. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 416-431. Tennov, D. (1979). Love and limerence: The experience of being in love. New York: Stein & Day. Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell, (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man: 1871-1971, (pp. 136-179), Chicago: Aldine. Wade, T. J., Butrie, L., & Hoffman, K. (2009) Women’s direct opening lines are perceived as most effective. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 145-149. Wade, T. J., Palmer, R., DiMaria, M. Johnson, C., & Multack, M. (2008). Deficits in sexual access versus deficits in emotional access and relationship termination decisions. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 6(4), 309-319.


304