Development and Preliminary Validation of the Lovebird Scale
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Study 1
2.1. Materials and Methods
2.1.1. Item Generation
2.1.2. Participants and Procedure
2.1.3. Measures
Relationship Assessment Scale
Mutual Psychological Development Questionnaire
Relationship Prototypes
Variable | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Mutuality | -- | |||||||
2. Romance | 0.72 *** | -- | ||||||
3. Disconnect | −0.59 *** | −0.56 *** | -- | |||||
4. RAS | 0.76 *** | 0.69 *** | −0.71 *** | -- | ||||
5. MPDQ Self | 0.57 *** | 0.57 *** | −0.69 *** | 0.64 *** | -- | |||
6. MPDQ Partner | 0.74 *** | 0.60 *** | −0.65 *** | 0.72 *** | 0.69 *** | -- | ||
7. Lovebird Prototype | 0.72 *** | 0.68 *** | −0.57 *** | 0.81 *** | 0.52 *** | 0.65 *** | -- | |
8. Numbed Prototype | −0.28 *** | −0.35 *** | 0.48 *** | −0.30 *** | −0.31 *** | −0.32 *** | −0.26 *** | -- |
M | 5.50 | 5.48 | 2.93 | 28.9 | 4.77 | 4.51 | 75.8 | 46.3 |
SD | 0.9 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 5.5 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 24.2 | 33.2 |
Range | 5.15 | 4.80 | 6.00 | 23.0 | 3.60 | 4.44 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Cronbach’s a | 0.93 | 0.89 | 0.86 | 0.90 | 0.87 | 0.88 | -- | -- |
2.1.4. Statistical Analyses
2.2. Results
3. Study 2
3.1. Materials and Methods
3.1.1. Participants and Procedure
3.1.2. Measures
Perceived Relationship Quality Components Inventory
Relationship Quality Scale
Variable | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.Mutuality | -- | |||||||||||||||
2.Romance | 0.77 *** | -- | ||||||||||||||
3.Disconnect | −0.71 *** | −0.69 *** | -- | |||||||||||||
4.Lovebird Composite | 0.93 *** | 0.88 *** | −0.89 *** | -- | ||||||||||||
5.RAS | 0.83 *** | 0.67 *** | −0.75 *** | 0.84 *** | -- | |||||||||||
6.MPDQ Self | 0.69 *** | 0.63 *** | −0.68 *** | 0.75 *** | 0.63 *** | -- | ||||||||||
7.MPDQ Partner | 0.79 *** | 0.64 *** | −0.69 *** | 0.79 *** | 0.73 *** | 0.76 *** | -- | |||||||||
8.PRQC Satisfaction | 0.84 *** | 0.72 *** | −0.71 *** | 0.84 *** | 0.89 *** | 0.59 *** | 0.72 *** | -- | ||||||||
9.PRQC Commitment | 0.60 *** | 0.62 *** | −0.58 *** | 0.66 *** | 0.62 *** | 0.46 *** | 0.45 *** | 0.64 *** | -- | |||||||
10.PRQC Intimacy | 0.74 *** | 0.79 *** | −0.67 *** | 0.80 *** | 0.79 *** | 0.60 *** | 0.65 *** | 0.82 *** | 0.55 *** | -- | ||||||
11.PRQC Trust | 0.74 *** | 0.55 *** | −0.56 *** | 0.69 *** | 0.73 *** | 0.49 *** | 0.59 *** | 0.74 *** | 0.49 *** | 0.59 *** | -- | |||||
12.PRQC Passion | 0.46 *** | 0.67 *** | −0.45 *** | 0.56 *** | 0.51 *** | 0.44 *** | 0.47 *** | 0.58 *** | 0.35 *** | 0.72 *** | 0.36 *** | -- | ||||
13.PRQC Love | 0.73 *** | 0.81 *** | −0.66 *** | 0.80 *** | 0.69 *** | 0.59 *** | 0.59 *** | 0.72 *** | 0.75 *** | 0.74 *** | 0.57 *** | 0.52 *** | -- | |||
14.RQS | 0.86 *** | 0.79 *** | −0.78 *** | 0.90 *** | 0.87 *** | 0.67 *** | 0.74 *** | 0.87 *** | 0.69 *** | 0.79 *** | 0.72 *** | 0.54 *** | 0.80 *** | -- | ||
15.Lovebird Prototype | 0.75 *** | 0.73 *** | −0.68 *** | 0.79 *** | 0.77 *** | 0.60 *** | 0.62 *** | 0.77 *** | 0.56 *** | 0.74 *** | 0.54 *** | 0.54 *** | 0.75 *** | 0.79 *** | -- | |
16.Numbed Prototype | −0.41 *** | −0.44 *** | 0.60 *** | −0.54 *** | −0.46 *** | −0.44 *** | −0.45 *** | −0.45 *** | −0.27 *** | −0.45 *** | −0.32 *** | −0.42 *** | −0.40 *** | −0.49 *** | −0.40 *** | -- |
M | 5.68 | 5.71 | 2.85 | 5.74 | 29.3 | 4.73 | 4.53 | 5.91 | 6.54 | 5.80 | 6.20 | 4.74 | 6.32 | 37.0 | 77.3 | 43.6 |
SD | 1.1 | 0.9 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 5.2 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 1.2 | 0.9 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 1.7 | 1.1 | 6.6 | 26.8 | 37.9 |
Range | 4.80 | 4.88 | 6.00 | 4.96 | 22.0 | 3.00 | 4.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 6.00 | 5.00 | 6.00 | 5.00 | 29.0 | 100 | 100 |
Cronbach’s a | 0.92 | 0.87 | 0.87 | 0.95 | 0.90 | 0.86 | 0.89 | 0.96 | 0.95 | 0.89 | 0.89 | 0.93 | 0.92 | 0.92 | -- | -- |
3.1.3. Statistical Analyses
3.2. Results
4. Study 3
4.1. Materials and Methods
4.1.1. Participants and Procedure
4.1.2. Measures
Dyadic Adjustment Scale
Adult Attachment Scale
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule
Infrequency Scale (Attention Check)
Variable | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.Mutuality | -- | |||||||||||||
2.Romance | 0.72 *** | -- | ||||||||||||
3.Disconnect | −0.70 *** | −0.66 *** | -- | |||||||||||
4.Lovebird Composite | 0.92 *** | 0.86 *** | −0.89 *** | -- | ||||||||||
5.RAS | 0.82 *** | 0.70 *** | −0.78 *** | 0.86 *** | -- | |||||||||
6.MPDQ Self | 0.60 *** | 0.65 *** | −0.61 *** | 0.69 *** | 0.58 *** | -- | ||||||||
7.MPDQ Partner | 0.73 *** | 0.64 *** | −0.70 *** | 0.78 *** | 0.67 *** | 0.74 *** | -- | |||||||
8.DAS-32 | 0.70 *** | 0.63 *** | −0.67 *** | 0.75 *** | 0.69 *** | 0.59 *** | 0.67 *** | -- | ||||||
9.AAS Anxiety | −0.23 ** | −0.13 * | 0.34 *** | −0.28 *** | −0.28 *** | −0.35 *** | −0.35 *** | −0.29 *** | -- | |||||
10.AAS Avoidant | −0.18 ** | −0.17 ** | 0.17 ** | −0.20 ** | −0.18 ** | −0.34 *** | −0.27 *** | −0.24 *** | 0.46 *** | -- | ||||
11.PANAS Positive | 0.20 ** | 0.34 *** | −0.18 ** | 0.25 *** | 0.21 *** | 0.38 *** | 0.26 *** | 0.20 ** | −0.36 *** | −0.44 *** | -- | |||
12.PANAS Negative | −0.08 | −0.05 | 0.21 ** | −0.14 * | −0.13 | −0.25 *** | −0.20 ** | −0.23 *** | 0.45 *** | 0.46 *** | −0.31 *** | -- | ||
13.Lovebird Prototype | 0.76 *** | 0.74 *** | −0.71 *** | 0.79 *** | 0.84 *** | 0.48 *** | 0.61 *** | 0.64 *** | −0.32 *** | −0.21 *** | 0.23 *** | −0.11 | -- | |
14.Numbed Prototype | −0.24 *** | −0.35 *** | 0.42 *** | −0.37 *** | −0.32 *** | −0.30 *** | −0.28 *** | −0.32 *** | 0.18 ** | −0.06 | −0.14 * | 0.05 | −0.32 *** | -- |
M | 5.75 | 5.73 | 2.83 | 5.78 | 29.6 | 4.72 | 4.55 | 111.3 | 2.76 | 2.72 | 33.1 | 17.9 | 77.9 | 47.9 |
SD | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 5.2 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 22.0 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 7.9 | 7.6 | 24.0 | 39.4 |
Range | 4.00 | 3.62 | 5.12 | 4.00 | 23.0 | 3.45 | 3.78 | 100.0 | 4.00 | 3.92 | 38.0 | 35.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Cronbach’s a | 0.92 | 0.85 | 0.86 | 0.94 | 0.91 | 0.86 | 0.88 | 0.95 | 0.88 | 0.90 | 0.92 | 0.93 | -- | -- |
4.1.3. Statistical Analyses
4.2. Results
5. Discussion
5.1. Psychometric Properties of the Lovebird Scale
5.2. Affective Experiences in Lovebird Relationships
5.3. Theoretical and Conceptual Implications
5.4. Clinical Implications
5.5. Limitations and Future Directions
6. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. The Lovebird Scale
- Instructions: You have been asked to complete this questionnaire because you are currently involved in a committed long-term romantic relationship. Please answer the following questions about your relationship using the scale below.
- 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Disagree somewhat; 4 = Neither agree nor disagree; 5 = Agree somewhat; 6 = Agree; 7 = Strongly agree
- I trust my partner completely and I can tell my partner anything. (m)
- When I hear certain songs, I think of how much I love my partner. (r)
- I am easily attracted to others when I am away from home. (d)
- My partner never intentionally insults me, puts me down, or makes me feel bad. (m)
- Our sex life is deeply satisfying. (r)
- We stay together for external reasons such as marriage vows and children, more than because of our enjoyment of being together. (d)
- We are very kind to each other. (m)
- Sometimes when I’m alone I find myself thinking about how much I love my partner. (r)
- I often think about former lovers. (d)
- My partner accepts every part of me, even the things I dislike about myself. (m)
- The more time we spend together the more I enjoy my partner’s company. (r)
- Although I love my partner, I would not say that I am currently “in love”. (d)
- My partner and I respect each other’s opinions, even when we don’t agree with each other. (m)
- I find my partner extremely physically attractive. (r)
- I feel like I need space after we spend a lot of time together. (d)
- My partner and I fit well together. (m)
- I often find myself thinking about special things I can do to make my partner happy. (r)
- I am more myself when I am alone than when I am with my partner. (d)
- I support my partner in their goals and aspirations, and they do the same for me. (m)
- Touching is natural and fundamental to our relationship. (r)
- There are things about my partner that I wish I could change. (d)
- I can talk to my partner about anything, even if it is a difficult conversation. (m)
- We are each other’s best friend. (r)
- My partner and I have recurring problems that we can’t get past. (d)
- I don’t have to sacrifice aspects of myself to keep my partner happy. (m)
- My partner and I go through life savoring moments together. (m)
- Mutuality = items 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 25, 26
- Romance = items 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 23
- Disconnect = items 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24
- Scoring: Subscale scores are calculated by taking the average of each set of items. Composite lovebird scores are calculated by first reverse-scoring items on the Disconnect subscale and then taking the average of all items in the scale.
Appendix B. Relationship Prototypes
- Instructions: Please read the statement below and use the sliding scale to indicate how accurately it describes your relationship.
- Extremely inaccurate (0) -------- Extremely accurate (100)
Appendix B.1. Relationship Prototype 1 (Lovebird Prototype; 164 Words)
Appendix B.2. Relationship Prototype 1 (Numbed Prototype; 167 Words)
References
- Braithwaite, S.R.; Delevi, R.; Fincham, F.D. Romantic relationships and the physical and mental health of college students. Pers. Relatsh. 2010, 17, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dush, C.M.K.; Amato, P.R. Consequences of relationship status and quality for subjective well-being. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 2005, 22, 607–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holt-Lunstad, J.; Birmingham, W.; Jones, B.Q. Is there something unique about marriage? The relative impact of marital status, relationship quality, and network social support on ambulatory blood pressure and mental health. Ann. Behav. Med. 2008, 35, 239–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Robles, T.F.; Slatcher, R.B.; Trombello, J.M.; McGinn, M.M. Marital quality and health: A meta-analytic review. Psychol. Bull. 2014, 140, 140–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roberson, P.N.E.; Norona, J.C.; Lenger, K.A.; Olmstead, S.B. How do relationship stability and quality affect wellbeing?: Romantic relationship trajectories, depressive symptoms, and life satisfaction across 30 years. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2018, 27, 2171–2184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Braithwaite, S.R.; Holt-Lunstad, J. Romantic relationships and mental health. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2017, 13, 120–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fincham, F.D.; Beach, S.R.H. Of Memes and Marriage: Toward a Positive Relationship Science. J. Fam. Theory Rev. 2010, 2, 4–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gottman, J. What Predicts Divorce? The Relationship between Marital Processes and Marital Outcomes; Psychology Press: New York, NY, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Strachman, A.; Gable, S.L. Approach and avoidance relationship commitment. Motiv. Emot. 2006, 30, 117–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keyes, C.L.M. The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life. J. Health Soc. Behav. 2002, 43, 207–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galovan, A.M.; Schramm, D.G. Strong relationality and ethical responsiveness: A framework and conceptual model for family science. J. Fam. Theory Rev. 2018, 10, 199–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wood, N.D.; Fife, S.T.; Parnell, K.J.; Ross, D.B. Answering the ethical call of the other: A test of the Strong Relationality Model of Relationship Flourishing. J. Marital Fam. Ther. 2022, 49, 186–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galovan, A.M.; Carroll, J.S.; Schramm, D.G.; Leonhardt, N.D.; Zuluaga, J.; McKenadel, S.E.M.; Oleksuik, M.R. Satisfaction or connectivity?: Implications from the strong relationality model of flourishing couple relationships. J. Marital Fam. Ther. 2021, 48, 883–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fletcher, G.J.O.; Simpson, J.A.; Thomas, G. The Measurement of Perceived Relationship Quality Components: A Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2000, 26, 340–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fowers, B.J.; Laurenceau, J.-P.; Penfield, R.D.; Cohen, L.M.; Lang, S.F.; Owenz, M.B.; Pasipanodya, E. Enhancing relationship quality measurement: The development of the Relationship Flourishing Scale. J. Fam. Psychol. 2016, 30, 997–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fincham, F.D.; Rogge, R. Understanding Relationship Quality: Theoretical Challenges and New Tools for Assessment. J. Fam. Theory Rev. 2010, 2, 227–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diehl, M.; Hay, E.L.; Berg, K.M. The ratio between positive and negative affect and flourishing mental health across adulthood. Aging Ment. Health 2011, 15, 882–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Frederickson, B.L.; Losada, M.F. Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human flourishing. Am. Psychol. 2005, 60, 678–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Litman, L.; Robinson, J.; Abberbock, T. TurkPrime.com: A versatile crowdsourcing data acquisition platform for the behavioral sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 2017, 49, 433–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hendrick, S.S. A Generic Measure of Relationship Satisfaction. J. Marriage Fam. 1988, 50, 93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vaughn, M.; Baier, M.E.M. Reliability and validity of the relationship assessment scale. Am. J. Fam. Ther. 1999, 27, 137–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watkins, M.W. Exploratory Factor Analysis: A Guide to Best Practice. J. Black Psychol. 2018, 44, 219–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Genero, N.P.; Miller, J.B.; Surrey, J.; Baldwin, L.M. Measuring perceived mutuality in close relationships: Validation of the Mutual Psychological Development Questionnaire. J. Fam. Psychol. 1992, 6, 36–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knekta, E.; Runyon, C.; Eddy, S. One Size Doesn’t Fit All: Using Factor Analysis to Gather Validity Evidence When Using Surveys in Your Research. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2019, 18, rm1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Steiner, M.; Grieder, S. EFAtools: An R package with fast and flexible implementations of exploratory factor analysis tools. J. Open Source Softw. 2020, 5, 2521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Black, B.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective, 7th ed.; Pearson Education: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Chonody, J.M.; Gabb, J.; Killian, M.; Dunk-West, P. Measuring Relationship Quality in an International Study. Res. Soc. Work Pract. 2018, 28, 920–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosseel, Y. lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. J. Stat. Softw. 2012, 48, 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 4th ed.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, L.-T.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spanier, G.B. Measuring Dyadic Adjustment: New Scales for Assessing the Quality of Marriage and Similar Dyads. J. Marriage Fam. 1976, 38, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graham, J.M.; Liu, Y.J.; Jeziorski, J.L. The Daydic Adjustment Scale: A reliability generalization meta-analysis. J. Marriage Fam. 2006, 68, 701–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Collins, N.L. Working models of attachment: Implications for explanation, emotion, and behavior. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1996, 71, 810–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watson, D.; Clark, L.A.; Tellegen, A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1988, 54, 1063–1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Crawford, J.R.; Henry, J.D. The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS): Construct validity, measurement properties and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. Br. J. Clin. Psychol. 2004, 43, 245–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Berinsky, A.J.; Margolis, M.F.; Sances, M.W. Separating the Shirkers from the Workers? Making Sure Respondents Pay Attention on Self-Administered Surveys. Am. J. Political Sci. 2014, 58, 739–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fowers, B.J.; Owenz, M.B. A eudaimonic theory of marital quality. J. Fam. Theory Rev. 2010, 2, 334–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hesse, C.; Mikkelson, A.C. Affection deprivation in romantic relationships. Comun. Q. 2017, 65, 20–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muise, A.; Maxwell, J.A.; Impett, E.A. What theories and methods from relationship research can contribute to sex research. J. Sex Res. 2018, 55, 540–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Debrot, A.; Schoebi, D.; Perrez, M.; Horn, A.B. Touch as an interpersonal emotion regulation process in couples’ daily lives: The mediating role of psychological intimacy. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2013, 39, 1373–1385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wagner, S.A.; Mattson, R.E.; Davila, J.; Johnson, M.D.; Cameron, N.M. Touch me just enough: The intersection of adult attachment, intimate touch, and marital satisfaction. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 2020, 37, 1945–1967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borelli, J.L.; Rasmussen, H.F.; Burkhart, M.L.; Sbarra, D.A. Relational savoring in long-distance relationships. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 2015, 32, 1083–1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borelli, J.L.; Smiley, P.A.; Kerr, M.L.; Hong, K.; Hecht, H.K.; Blackard, M.B.; Falasiri, E.; Cervantes, B.R.; Bond, D.K. Relational savoring: An attachment-based approach to promoting interpersonal flourishing. Psychotherapy 2020, 57, 340–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costa-Ramalho, S.; Marques-Pinto, A.; Ribeiro, M.T.; Pereira, C.R. Savoring positive events in couple life: Impacts on relationship quality and dyadic adjustment. Fam. Sci. 2015, 6, 170–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lenger, K.A.; Gordon, C.L. To have and to savor: Examining associations between savoring and relationship satisfaction. Couple Fam. Psychol. Res. Pract. 2019, 8, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abbasi, I.S.; Alghamdi, N.G. Polarized couples in therapy: Recognizing indifference as the opposite of love. J. Sex Marital Ther. 2017, 43, 40–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, T.; Chan, D.K.S. How anxious and avoidant attachment affect romantic relationship quality differently: A meta-analytic review. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 2012, 42, 406–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Debrot, A.; Meuwly, N.; Muise, A.; Impett, E.A.; Schoebi, D. More than just sex: Affection mediates the association between sexual activity and well-being. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2017, 43, 287–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Harasymchuk, C.; Fehr, B. Development of a prototype-based measure of relational boredom. Pers. Relatsh. 2012, 19, 162–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holt-Lunstad, J.; Uchino, B.N. Social Ambivalence and Disease (SAD): A theoretical model aimed at understanding the health implications of ambivalent relationships. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2019, 14, 941–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ross, K.M.; Rook, K.; Winczewski, L.; Collins, N.; Schetter, C.D. Close relationships and health: The interactive effect of positive and negative aspects. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 2019, 13, e12468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gottman, J.; Gottman, J. The natural principles of love. J. Fam. Theory Rev. 2017, 9, 7–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rimé, B.; Bouchat, P.; Paquot, L.; Giglio, L. Intrapersonal, interpersonal, and social sharing outcomes of the social sharing of emotion. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2020, 31, 127–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rauers, A.; Riediger, M. Ease of mind or ties that bind? Costs and benefits of disclosing daily hassles in partnerships. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 2023, 14, 551–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Algoe, S.B. Find, Remind, and Bind: The functions of gratitude in everyday relationships. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 2012, 6, 455–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frederickson, B.L. The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 2004, 359, 1367–1378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bradbury, T.N.; Bodenmann, G. Interventions for couples. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 2020, 16, 99–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Weiss, R.L. Cognitive and strategic interventions in behavioral marital therapy. In Marital Interaction: Analysis and Modification; Hahlweg, K., Jacobson, N.S., Eds.; Guilford: New York, NY, USA, 1984; pp. 337–355. [Google Scholar]
- Andersen, S.M.; Przybylinski, E. Shared reality in interpersonal relationships. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2018, 23, 42–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Acevedo, B.P.; Aron, A. Does a long-term relationship kill romantic love? Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2009, 13, 59–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Item | Factor Loadings | ||
---|---|---|---|
LB-M | LB-R | LB-D | |
6. I trust my partner completely and I can tell my partner anything. | 0.70 | ||
10. My partner never intentionally insults me, puts me down, or makes me feel bad. | 0.82 | ||
12. My partner and I have recurring problems that we can’t get past. | −0.55 | 0.37 | |
13. We are each other’s best friend. | 0.57 | 0.32 | |
33. We are very kind to each other. | 0.78 | ||
38. My partner accepts every part of me, even the things I dislike about myself. | 0.69 | ||
41. My partner and I respect each other’s opinions, even when we don’t agree with each other. | 0.73 | ||
44. My partner and I fit well together. | 0.61 | 0.25 | |
45. I support my partner in their goals and aspirations, and they do the same for me. | 0.58 | ||
47. I can talk to my partner about anything, even if it is a difficult conversation. | 0.86 | ||
48. I don’t have to sacrifice aspects of myself to keep my partner happy. | 0.76 | ||
1. When I hear certain songs, I think of how much I love my partner. | 0.64 | ||
4. All of life’s ups and downs seem pretty insignificant compared to the love that we share. | 0.54 | ||
5. Our sex life is deeply satisfying. | 0.69 | ||
17. Sometimes when I’m alone I find myself thinking about how much I love my partner. | 0.70 | ||
18. The more time we spend together the more I enjoy my partner’s company. | 0.27 | 0.55 | |
19. We share a seamless continuum of compassionate and erotic love. | 0.76 | ||
22. I find my partner extremely physically attractive. | −0.21 | 0.70 | |
24. I often find myself thinking about special things I can do to make my partner happy. | 0.68 | ||
30. Touching is natural and fundamental to our relationship. | 0.53 | ||
37. My partner and I go through life savoring moments together. | 0.31 | 0.52 | |
20. I am easily attracted to others when I am away from home. | 0.77 | ||
27. When I see lovey-dovey couples I think they are unrealistic or out of touch. | 0.54 | ||
31. We stay together for external reasons such as marriage vows and children, more than because of our enjoyment of being together. | −0.23 | 0.54 | |
32. I often think about former lovers. | 0.87 | ||
36. Although I love my partner, I would not say that I am currently “in love”. | 0.66 | ||
46. I feel like I need space after we spend a lot of time together. | 0.60 | ||
14. My partner and I know how to make each other laugh, even on our bad days. | 0.46 | 0.29 | |
26. We don’t have to do anything in particular to thoroughly enjoy being together. | 0.44 | ||
34. I am more myself when I am alone than when I am with my partner. | −0.27 | 0.49 | |
49. There are things about my partner that I wish I could change | −0.25 | 0.40 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Cloonan, S.; Ault, L.; Weihs, K.L.; Lane, R.D. Development and Preliminary Validation of the Lovebird Scale. Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 747. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14090747
Cloonan S, Ault L, Weihs KL, Lane RD. Development and Preliminary Validation of the Lovebird Scale. Behavioral Sciences. 2024; 14(9):747. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14090747
Chicago/Turabian StyleCloonan, Sara, Lara Ault, Karen L. Weihs, and Richard D. Lane. 2024. "Development and Preliminary Validation of the Lovebird Scale" Behavioral Sciences 14, no. 9: 747. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14090747