Relationship-Specific Love Attitudes Scale

Abstract

The Relationship-Specific Love Attitudes Scale (RLAS) is a 42-item psychometric instrument designed to assess an individual’s attitudes toward a specific love relationship. It is an adaptation of the original Love Attitudes Scale, which measured both romantic and non-romantic attitudes generally. The RLAS is grounded in the theoretical framework of John Alan Lee’s love styles, dividing the items into six distinct subscales: Eros (passionate love), Ludus (game-playing love), Storge (friendship love), Pragma (practical love), Mania (possessive, dependent love), and Agape (altruistic love).

Respondents rate their agreement with each statement using a standard 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). This scale provides researchers with a highly focused tool to examine how specific relational contexts influence the manifestation of various love styles.

Keywords

Love Attitudes Scale, Love styles, Romantic relationships, Eros, Ludus, Storge, Pragma, Mania, Agape, Relational psychology, Relationship quality.

Authors

Clyde Hendrick, Susan Hendrick

Purpose

The primary purpose of the RLAS is to measure the nuanced ways individuals conceptualize and experience love within the context of a current or specific romantic relationship. This relationship-specific focus distinguishes it from earlier versions of the scale, allowing researchers to study how various love styles manifest and operate in real-time relational dynamics and specific partner interactions.

The scale was developed to empirically test and validate Lee’s six-color model of love, providing a quantitative tool for assessing emotional, behavioral, and cognitive orientations toward a partner. By isolating attitudes toward a single relationship, the RLAS offers greater specificity than general love attitude measures, making it particularly useful for studies focusing on relationship satisfaction and longevity.

Construct

The RLAS measures the construct of Love Styles, based on the typological theory proposed by sociologist John Alan Lee (1973/1976). Lee theorized that love, much like color, is composed of six basic primary and secondary styles. The RLAS operationalizes these six styles as distinct subscales, each measured by seven items:

• Eros: Characterized by passionate, romantic, and physical love, often involving immediate attraction and intense satisfaction.
• Ludus: Defined as game-playing love, where commitment is avoided, and manipulation or detachment is present.
• Storge: Represents friendship-based love, which grows slowly out of deep companionship and mutual caring.
• Pragma: Practical, logical love based on compatibility, shared background, and careful consideration of long-term goals (often referred to as a “shopping list” approach).
• Mania: Possessive, dependent, and highly emotional love, often marked by volatility, anxiety, and intense physiological reactions to the partner’s behavior.
• Agape: Altruistic, selfless love characterized by unconditional giving and a willingness to sacrifice one’s own wishes for the partner’s well-being.

Validity

Construct validity for the underlying love styles theory was established through extensive research, notably in the initial 1986 study (Hendrick & Hendrick). The research demonstrated significant relationships between the measured love attitudes and several external variables, including gender, ethnicity, previous love experiences, current relationship status, and measures of self-esteem. A confirmatory study (N=567) verified that these significant correlations were consistent and replicable, supporting the scale’s external validity.

Furthermore, studies investigating the influence of social desirability have provided convergent validity evidence. Research showed that certain love styles, such as Mania (possessive, dependent love), were consistently correlated negatively with measures of social desirability, suggesting that respondents who endorsed this style were less concerned with presenting a positive social image, thus reinforcing the authenticity of the construct being measured.

Reliability

High levels of internal reliability were demonstrated for each of the six subscales during the scale’s initial development and validation (Study I, N=807). This internal consistency, typically measured using Cronbach’s alpha, indicates that the items within each specific love style subscale measure the intended construct cohesively.

A confirmatory study (Study II, N=567) successfully replicated the initial reliability analyses, confirming the stability and consistency of the internal structure across different samples. Crucially, the scales generally exhibited low intercorrelations with each other, supporting the notion that the six love styles are conceptually distinct dimensions rather than overlapping measures of a single, global construct of love.

Factor Analysis

The structural integrity of the RLAS was confirmed through both exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. The initial exploratory factor analysis clearly extracted six distinct factors, corresponding precisely to the six theoretical love styles: Eros, Ludus, Storge, Pragma, Mania, and Agape. Each factor was clearly defined by the seven items intended to measure that specific style.

A subsequent confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) replicated both the six-factor structure and the specific factor loadings observed in the first study. This strong replication across different samples confirms the scale’s fundamental dimensional structure and its robust grounding in Lee’s love styles theory, ensuring that the scale accurately measures the intended, separate components of love attitudes.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report questionnaire / Psychometric scale

Format: 42 items, 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly agree to 5=strongly disagree). Six subscales (7 items each).

Language Available: Original English (translations may exist in subsequent research).

Population Group: Individuals involved in or reflecting on a specific romantic relationship.

Age Group: Young adults and adults.

Population Details: Initial validation included a large, diverse sample (N=807 for Study I) of college students (aged 18-44), examining variables like gender, ethnicity, and relationship status.

Test Methodology: Each subscale is scored separately. The scoring is continuous, meaning higher scores on a subscale indicate a stronger endorsement of that particular love style within the context of the specific relationship being assessed.

Keywords

Interpersonal relationships, Romantic love, Psychological measurement, Self-esteem, Gender differences, Factor analysis, Love attitudes.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not specified in source materials.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not specified in source materials.

Correspondence Address: Not specified in source materials.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Relationship-Specific Love Attitudes Scale (RLAS) was formally published in 1990, detailing the relationship-focused modifications to the original scale. Information regarding current usage permissions and associated fees should be directed to the authors, Clyde Hendrick and Susan Hendrick, or the publisher of the original validation paper, the Journal of Social Behavior and Personality.

Reference’s

• Hendrick, C. & Hendrick, S. (1990). A relationship-specific version of the Love Attitudes Scale. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 239-254.
• Hendrick, C. & Hendrick, S. (1986). A theory and method of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 392-402.
• Inman-Amos, J., Hendrick, S., & Hendrick, C. (1994). Love attitudes: Similarities between parents and children. Family Relations. Special Issue: Family processes and child and adolescent development: A special issue, 43, 456-461.
• Davies, M. F. (2001). Socially desirable responding and impression management in the endorsement of love styles. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 135, 562-570.

Items of the RELATIONSHIP-SPECIFIC LOVE ATTITUDES SCALE

1. My lover and I were attracted to each other immediately after we first met.
2. My lover and I have the right physical “chemistry” between us.
3. Our lovemaking is very intense and satisfying.
4. I feel that my lover and I were meant for each other.
5. My lover and I became emotionally involved rather quickly.
6. My lover and I really understand one another.
7. My lover fits my ideal standards of physical beauty/handsomness.
8. I try to keep my lover a little uncertain about my commitment to him/her.
9. I believe that what my lover doesn’t know about me won’t hurt him/her.
10. I have sometimes had to keep my lover from finding out about other lovers.
11. I could get over my love affair with my lover pretty easily and quickly.
12. My lover would get upset if he/she knew of some of the things I’ve done with other people.
13. When my lover gets too dependent on me, I want to back off a little.
14. I enjoy playing the “game of love” with my lover and a number of different partners.
15. It is hard for me to say exactly when our friendship turned into love.
16. To be genuine, our love first required caring for a while 1 2 3 4 5
17. I expect to always be friends with my lover.
18. Our love is the best kind because it grew out of a long friendship.
19. Our friendship merged gradually into love over time.
20. Our love is really a deep friendship, not a mysterious, mystical emotion.
21. Our love relationship is the most satisfying because it developed from a good friendship.
22. I considered what my lover was going to become in life before I committed myself to him/her.
23. I tried to plan my life carefully before choosing a lover.
24. In choosing my lover, I believe it was best to love someone with a similar background.
25. A main consideration in choosing my lover was how he/she would reflect on my family.
26. An important factor in choosing my lover was whether or not he/she would be a good parent.
27. One consideration in choosing my lover was how he/she would reflect on my career.
28. Before getting very involved with my lover, I tried to figure out how compatible his/her hereditary background would be with mine in case we ever had children.
29. When things aren’t right with m lover and me, my stomach gets upset.
30. If my lover and I break up, I would get so depressed that I would even think of suicide.
31. Sometimes I get so excited about being in love with my lover that I can’t sleep.
32. When my lover doesn’t pay attention to me, I feel sick all over.
33. Since I’ve been in love with my lover, I’ve had trouble concentrating on anything else.
34. I cannot relax if I suspect that my lover is with someone else.
35. If my lover ignores me for a while, I sometimes do stupid things to try to get his/her attention back.
36. I try to always help my lover through difficult times.
37. I would rather suffer myself than let my lover suffer.
38. I cannot be happy unless I place my lover’s happiness before my own.
39. I am usually willing to sacrifice my own wishes to let my lover achieve his/hers.
40. Whatever I own is my lover’s to use as he/she chooses.
41. When my lover gets angry with me, I still love him/her fully and unconditionally.
42. I would endure all things for the sake of my lover.