The Personality of Love: Fundamental Motives

and Traits Related to Components of Love

Gina Engel

a

, Kenneth R. Olson

b,

*, Carol Patrick

b

a

Research Psychiatric Center, 2323 East 63rd Street, Kansas City, MO 64130, USA

b

Department of Psychology, Fort Hays State University, Hays, KS, 67601, USA

Received 6 November 2000; received in revised form 2 April 2001

Abstract

This study examined the relationship between two aspects of personality, fundamental motives and five-

factor traits, and the three components of love (intimacy, passion, and commitment) in Sternberg’s Tri-
angular Love Theory [Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Cupid’s arrow: The course of love through time. London:
Cambridge University Press; Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Bulletin, 93,
119–138]. Relationship satisfaction was also assessed. Conscientiousness was a significant predictor of love
for both males and females in close opposite-sex relationships. The motives and personality subscales
(facets) that were related to components of love and satisfaction differed for males and females. Reasons
for these relationships and their implications are discussed. # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights
reserved.

Keywords:

Love; Personality; Motives; Traits

Love, long the focus of poets and songwriters, is one of the more elusive psychological con-

structs (Berscheid, 1988). A number of researchers have subjected love to scientific scrutiny (Aron
& Westbay, 1996; Davis & Latty-Mann, 1987; Fehr, 1988; Fehr & Russell, 1991; Murray,
Holmes, & Griffin, 1996; Sternberg, 1997). Lee (1977) and Sternberg (1986, 1998) formulated two
of the most comprehensive theories of love. Lee proposed that love should be understood in
terms of individuals’ multidimensional ‘‘styles’’ of loving. Lee described six such major styles: (a)
eros (erotic, passionate love), (b) ludus (game-playing love), (c) storge (companionate, friendship-
based love), (d) mania (possessive, jealous love), (e) agape (selfless love), and (f) pragma (logical,
practical love).

0191-8869/02/$ - see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
P I I : S 0 1 9 1 - 8 8 6 9 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 9 0 - 3

Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 839–853

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

* Corresponding author. Tel.: [phone].

E-mail address:

[e-mail] (K.R. Olson).

Research has related the six love styles to a variety of data (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986, 1990,

1995). Several studies have examined the relationship between personality traits and Lee’s (1977)
theory (Davies, 1996; Lester & Philbrick, 1988; Mallandain & Davies, 1994; Richardson, Medvin,
& Hammock, 1988; Wan, Luk & Lai, 2000; Woll, 1989). For example, of these studies, three
using the Eysenck Personality Inventory found that ludus and eros were correlated with extra-
version. Five of the studies found that neuroticism (emotionality) and mania were correlated.

More recently, Sternberg (1986, 1998) proposed a ‘‘triangular theory’’ of love. This theory

addresses both the nature of love and loves in various kinds of relationships. Sternberg’s model
deals with the ways loves differ from each other and subsumes several other theories. The theory
holds that love can be explained in terms of three components: intimacy (warm feelings of close-
ness, connectedness, and bondedness), passion (romantic and sexual drives; physical attraction),
and decision/commitment (short- and long-term intentions to love and maintain love). This tri-
partite model attempts to provide a comprehensive basis for understanding many aspects of love
in close relationships.

According to Sternberg (1998), the three dimensions of intimacy, passion, and commitment,

alone or in combination, form various kinds of loving experiences. These experiences include
liking (intimacy alone), infatuation (passion alone), empty love (commitment alone), romantic love
(intimacy plus passion), companionate love (intimacy plus commitment), fatuous love (passion
plus commitment), and consummate love (intimacy plus passion plus commitment). Sternberg
(1986) described how levels of the three basic components change over the course of both suc-
cessful and failed relationships, and the mismatches that occur in the relationship involvement of
two individuals when discrepancies exist in the geometric size and shape of their love ‘‘triangles’’.

The present research examines the relationship between personality and the three components

of love proposed by Sternberg (1986, 1998). Although a number of studies have examined the
personality traits associated with Lee’s (1977) six love styles, previous research has not examined
the relationship between Sternberg’s model of love and fundamental personality dimensions. The
content of Lee’s theory is quite different from Sternberg’s triangular love theory. For example,
two elements of Lee’s typology, ludus and pragma, are not viewed by Sternberg as types of love
(Sternberg, 1986). Relatedly, Aron and Westbay (1996) identified a three-dimensional latent
structure of the prototype of love, based on factor analysis of centrality ratings of 68 prototypical
characteristics of love. This analysis yielded the same three dimensions of intimacy, passion, and
commitment posited by Sternberg. Aron and Westbay’s analysis also found that ludus and
pragma had no unique associations with the three love dimensions and are probably not really
part of what participants think of as love.

Two major dimensions of personality, traits and motives, are assessed in this study. It has been

argued that traits and motives reflect two fundamentally different elements of personality that are
conceptually distinct (Winter, John, Stuart, Klohnen, & Duncan, 1998). Motives relate to peo-
ple’s goals, wishes, and desires, and traits to the way people act. Traits answer the question of
‘‘how’’ a person behaves; motives answer the question ‘‘why.’’ Motives can be expressed in many
different ways; traits stylistically channel the expression of motives. For example, an introverted
and extraverted person may share the same goal but pursue the goal in very different ways.
Relatedly, McAdams (1995) suggested that comprehensive description of personality requires
more than one level, of which dispositional traits are only the first, broad level. Motives, along
with a wide assortment of other constructs, comprise Level II, generically labelled ‘‘personal

840

G. Engel et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 839–853

concerns.’’ Whereas traits are decontextualized, Level II personal concerns are contextualized
within time, place, and/or roles; ‘‘motives are defined in terms of future ends’’ (p. 377).

The trait measure used in this study is the NEOPI-R, a widely used measure of the Five-Factor

Model. This model has assumed a dominant position in the description of basic personality
structure (Wiggins & Trapnell, 1997). The model posits five fundamental traits that have been
found in numerous studies across different populations and cultures. These major trait domains
are extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience.

Motives offer an additional and somewhat different perspective on personality. Based on a

review of a variety of literature and various psychometric procedures, Reiss and Havercamp
(1998) developed a measure that purports to comprehensively measure fundamental human
motivation. A fundamental motive was defined ‘‘as a universal end goal that accounts for psy-
chologically significant behavior’’ (p. 98). Nearly all of the 16 end motives included are common
to several animal species as well as humans and have survival value and evolutionary significance.
Individuals vary in the intensity which they experience the desires, and these individual differences
are believed to reflect genetic and environmental variations across individuals. Reiss (2000)
described how fundamental motives and desires are satisfied in significant areas of life such as
work, personal and family relationships, sports, and the achievement of happiness.

The present study attempts to determine what fundamental personality characteristics are

associated with love and if personality variables are differentially related to intimacy, passion,
and commitment. In other words, what is the personality profile of loving individuals in regard to
both fundamental motives and traits? To the extent that love is associated with particular traits
and motives, data concerning this issue may contribute to a better understanding of the nature of
the construct of love and its components. There is no formal theory linking love to fundamental
motives and five-factor traits. Because these latter variables are purported to be fundamental

Table 1
Definitions of Reiss profile motives

Motive

Definition

Curiosity

Desire for knowledge

Eating

Desire to consume food

Honor

Desire to be loyal to one’s parents, heritage, and moral code

Acceptance

Desire for inclusion

Romance

Desire for sex and beauty

Physical Activity

Desire for exercise

Order

Desire for organization

Independence

Desire for self-reliance

Vengeance

Desire to retaliate when offended

Social Contact

Desire for companionship

Family

Desire to raise and nurture one’s own children

Status

Desire for social standing

Tranquility

Desire for emotional calm

Idealism

Desire for social justice

Power

Desire to influence others

Saving

Desire to collect things

G. Engel et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 839–853

841

dimensions of personality, it is expected that they would be related to such a fundamental and
important aspect of human experience as love. The present study is exploratory in examining
these relationships, and empirical data may aid in formulation of theories concerning the rela-
tionship of love and fundamental personality variables.

1. Method

1.1. Participants

A total of 126 students (36 male, 90 female) in psychology classes at a midwestern American

university participated in this study. Participants were required to be currently involved in a close
relationship with someone of the opposite sex, excluding relatives. Mean age of participants was
20.3 years (S.D.=4.5). Two participants were married and 124 were single.

2. Materials

2.1. Sternberg Triangular Love Scale

The Sternberg Triangular Love Scale (Sternberg, 1998) is a 45-item questionnaire that measures

the degree of intimacy, passion, and commitment an individual experiences toward a relationship
partner. Respondents rated their own love-related thoughts, feelings, behaviors, and preferences
toward their partner on a scale ranging from 1 ‘‘not at all’’ to 9 ‘‘extremely’’. Participants rated
the items in regard to how they felt in relation to their current close relationship partner (non-
relative) of the opposite sex.

2.1.1. Reiss Profile of Fundamental Goals and Motivation Sensitivities

The Reiss Profile (Reiss, 2000; Reiss & Havercamp, 1998) provides a comprehensive assessment

of 16 fundamental end motives (see Table 1). The 128 items are rated on a seven-point scale
ranging from ‘‘Strongly Disagree’’ to ‘‘Strongly Agree’’. The scales are internally consistent, with
a median Cronbach alpha coefficient of 0.83, and show stability over time, with two-week test–
retest Pearson product-moment r values ranging from 0.80 to 0.96 (Reiss & Havercamp, 1998).

2.1.2. NEO PI-R

The NEOPI-R, Form S (Costa & McCrae, 1992) is a widely-used measure of five fundamental

trait domains and 30 facets. The 240 test items are rated on a five-point scale ranging from
‘‘Strongly Disagree’’ to ‘‘Strongly Agree’’.

2.1.3. Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS)

The love individuals feel toward their partners may or may not be reciprocated, thus leading to

differing levels of relationship satisfaction. Therefore, a measure of relationship satisfaction, the
RAS (Hendrick, 1988), was administered to determine the relationships between love and rela-
tionship satisfaction, and between relationship satisfaction and personality variables. The RAS is

842

G. Engel et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 839–853

a widely-used seven-item self-report measure in which various elements of relationship satisfac-
tion are rated on a five-point scale.

2.2. Procedure

The NEOPI-R was administered in psychology classes. The other three scales were adminis-

tered in a second testing session outside of class to persons who were currently involved in a close
opposite-sex relationship. Participants received course extra credit.

3. Results

There were no significant sex differences in self-ratings of intimacy (males: M=7.32,

S.D.=1.57; females: M=7.61, S.D.=1.07), passion (males: M =6.47, S.D.=1.97; females:
M=6.72, S.D.=1,62), commitment (males: M =6.76, S.D.=1.93; females: M =7.17,
S.D.=1.34), or relationship satisfaction (males: M =27.50, S.D.=6.36; females: M=27.47,
S.D.=5.19). t-Tests showed significant sex differences on the NEOPI-R on domains of Neuro-
ticism and Extraversion, facets of N1: Anxiety, N6: Vulnerability, E1: Warmth, E2: Gregarious-
ness, E6: Positive Emotions, O3: Feelings, and motives of Curiosity, Romance, Physical Activity,
and Tranquility (see Table 2). Because of the significant sex differences on several variables,
separate statistical analyses were conducted for males and females.

3.1. Love and five-factor traits

3.1.1. Pearson correlations

Due to the relatively large number of correlations carried out in this study, only those sig-

nificant at least at the 0.01 level are considered. For the correlations significant at the 0.01 level

Table 2
Means and standard deviations for variables with significant sex differences

Variable

Males

Females

Neuroticism*

85.17 (19.18)

93.90 (19.73)

Extraversion*

118.67 (18.63)

126.76 (17.20)

N1: Anxiety**

15.72 (4.71)

18.51 (4.69)

N6: Vulnerability*

10.83 (3.42)

12.78 (4.01)

E1: Warmth**

22.61 (4.06)

24.60 (3.45)

E2: Gregariousness*

17.75 (5.00)

20.20 (5.23)

E6: Positive Emotions**

21.06 (4.25)

23.24 (3.92)

03: Feelings*

21.14 (4.47)

22.68 (3.19)

Curiosity*

43.92 (6.58)

41.43 (5.49)

Romance (Sex)*

32.47 (11.74)

27.82 (10.01)

Physical Activity**

44.61 (8.74)

38.98 (9.17)

Tranquility*

24.67 (8.12)

27.70 (7.21)

*P < 0.05
**P < 0.01

G. Engel et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 839–853

843

for both men and women, a Fishers Z transformation of r was conducted to determine if there
were significant differences in the correlations for men and women. For these correlations (Con-
scientiousness with Intimacy, Passion, and Relationship Satisfaction, and C3: Dutifulness with
Intimacy), there were no significant differences between men and women.

Table 3
Pearson correlations with NEOPI-R

Males

Females

NEOPI-R

I

P

C

RS

I

P

C

RS

Neuroticism

0.09

0.03

0.01

0.24

0.22*

0.18

0.17

0.07

Extraversion

0.34*

0.29

0.26

0.21

0.20

0.18

0.13

0.28**

Openness

0.14

0.06

0.06

0.12

0.03

0.04

0.01

0.003

Agreeableness

0.01

0.05

0.004

0.19

0.20

0.11

0.08

0.13

Conscientiousness

0.59**

0.53**

0.55**

0.59**

0.33**

0.28**

0.24*

0.31**

N1

0.01

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.13

0.07

0.05

0.07

N2

0.06

0.01

0.07

0.32

0.16

0.16

0.07

0.10

N3

0.04

0.13

0.15

0.05

0.24*

0.23*

0.17

0.18

N4

0.13

0.03

0.002

0.22

0.15

.13

0.13

0.02

N5

0.03

0.05

0.08

0.14

.10

0.12

0.19

0.03

N6

0.38

0.30

0.26

0.34*

0.15

0.02

0.11

0.01

E1

0.35*

0.26

0.27

0.20

0.22*

0.13

0.13

0.25*

E2

0.06

0.04

0.06

0.05

0.05

0.08

0.02

0.03

E3

0.58**

0.55**

0.53**

0.48**

0.20

0.06

0.15

0.13

E4

0.30

0.26

0.33

0.39*

0.20

0.16

0.11

0.34*

E5

0.02

0.12

0.03

0.13

0.09

0.05

0.02

0.04

E6

0.19

0.05

0.16

0.10

0.28**

0.23*

0.16

0.34*

01

.15

0.18

0.27

0.12

0.03

0.10

0.05

0.04

02

0.03

0.03

0.04

0.01

0.11

0.14

0.13

0.07

03

0.39*

0.28

0.37*

0.33

0.06

0.01

0.04

0.03

04

.04

0.07

0.18

0.04

0.02

0.04

0.08

0.06

05

0.28

0.25

0.25

0.28

0.003

0.12

0.02

0.06

06

0.03

0.04

0.10

0.05

0.04

0.05

0.11

0.10

A1

0.16

0.18

0.11

0.22

0.19

0.23*

0.06

0.17

A2

0.09

0.09

0.01

0.19

0.14

0.01

0.02

0.10

A3

0.15

0.08

0.12

0.14

0.20

0.10

0.10

0.18

A4

0.003

0.09

0.02

0.22

0.19

0.11

0.08

0.16

A5

0.05

0.10

0.05

0.12

0.09

0.09

0.02

0.04

A6

0.08

0.01

0.01

0.004

0.16

0.05

0.06

0.01

C1

0.53**

0.48**

0.42**

0.46**

0.23*

0.12

0.16

0.15

C2

0.48**

0.44**

0.41*

0.36*

0.12

0.15

0.08

0.20

C3

0.54**

0.42*

0.52**

0.35*

0.29**

0.16

0.13

0.21

C4

0.53**

0.41*

0.47**

0.55**

0.24*

0.18

0.20

0.27*

C5

0.37*

0.38*

0.40*

0.53**

0.29**

0.29**

0.26*

0.24*

C6

0.16

0.19

0.18

0.32

0.35**

0.32**

0.27*

0.30**

I, Intimacy; P, Passion; C, Commitment; RS, Relationship Satisfaction.

*P < 0.05
**P < 0.01

844

G. Engel et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 839–853

For males (see Table 3), Conscientiousness was significantly correlated with all three love variables

(average r=0.56). Four of the six facets of Conscientiousness were also correlated with the two or
more of the three love variables. E3: Assertiveness was correlated with all three love variables.
Thus, for males, components of love were associated with being conscientious, assertive (E3),
achievement-oriented (C4), orderly (C2), having a sense of duty (C3), and feeling competent (C1).

For females, Conscientiousness was also correlated with Intimacy and Passion. C3: Dutifulness,

C5: Self-Discipline, and C6: Deliberation were correlated with Intimacy and Passion.

3.1.2. Multiple regression

To determine which traits were the best predictors of love scores, NEO-PI-R scores were

regressed on each of the three love variables of Intimacy, Passion, and Commitment, using linear
regression with backward entry of variables. Because the five NEO-PI-R domain scores are the
sum of their respective facet scores, multiple regression analyses were conducted separately for
domain and facet scores to maintain independence of these variables. Adjusted R values, which
adjust for sample size, are reported.

For males, the personality domains were significant predictors of all three love variables: Inti-

macy [adj. R

2=

0.30, F (5,35)=3.95, P < 0.01], Passion [adj. R

2

=0.24, F (5,35)=3.21, P < 0.05],

and Commitment [adj. R

2

=0.25, F (5,35)=3.36, P < 0.05]. Conscientiousness was the only

individual domain predictor, and was significantly related to all three love variables: Intimacy
(t=3.77, P < 0.01, =0.61), Passion (t=3.46, P < 0.01, =0.58), and Commitment (t=3.64,
P <

0.01, =0.61).

Regarding personality facets, Commitment was predicted by E3: Assertiveness (t=2.78,

P <

0.05, =1.42) and negatively by N6: Vulnerability (t= 2.73, P < 0.05, = 1.29). No facets

were predictors of Intimacy or Passion.

For females, the domains were significant predictors of Intimacy [adj. R

2

=0.09, F (5,89)=2.78,

P <

0.05] but not Passion or Commitment. Similar to males, the individual domain of Con-

scientiousness was significantly related to Intimacy (t=2.46, P < 0.05, =0.27) and Passion
(t=2.04, P < 0.05, =0.23). The Deliberation facet (C6) was a significant predictor of Passion
(t=2.47, P < 0.05, =0.40).

3.2. Love and motives

3.2.1. Pearson correlations

For males, the Power motive was significantly correlated with all three love variables (see

Table 4). The significant correlates for females differed from males. For females, the motive of
Vengeance was negatively correlated with all three love variables, and Independence was nega-
tively correlated with Passion.

3.2.2. Multiple regression

Reiss profiles motives were regressed on each of the three love variables. For males, the com-

bined motives were significant predictors of Intimacy [adj. R

2

=0.44, F (16,35)=2.71, P < 0.05],

with individual motives of Saving (t= 2.53, P < 0.05, = 0.66) and Tranquility (t= 2.14,
P <

0.05, = 0.52) negatively related to Intimacy, and Idealism (t=2.46, P < 0.05, =0.58) and

Power (t= 4.48, P < 0.01, =0.58) positively related to Intimacy. These first three motives were

G. Engel et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 839–853

845

also significant predictors of Passion (t= 2.66, P < 0.05, = 0.77 for Saving; t=2.64, P < 0.05,


=0.70 for Idealism; t= 2.31, P < 0.05, = 0.63 for Tranquility. Idealism (t=2.41, P < 0.05,



=0.67) and Power (t= 3.52, P < 0.01, =0.50) were significantly related to Commitment.

For females, the combined motives were significant predictors of Passion [adj. R

2

=0.19,

F

(16,89)=2.32, P < 0.01], with individual motives of Independence (t= 3.19, P < 0.01,



= 0.374) and Acceptance (t= 2.20, P < 0.05, = 0.30) negatively related to Passion, and

Romance positively related to Passion (t=2.39, P < 0.05, = 0.27). Romance was also positively
related to Commitment (t=2.09, P < 0.05, =0.25).

3.3. Relationship satisfaction

Relationship satisfaction showed moderately high correlations with the love variables (for

males, 0.58 with intimacy and passion, 0.63 with commitment; for females, 0.71, 0.65, and 0.70 for
intimacy, passion, and commitment, respectively). Thus, one-third to one-half of the variation in
relationship satisfaction was accounted for by the degree of love participants felt for their partners.

3.3.1. Pearson correlations

Similar to the findings for the love variables, relationship satisfaction for males was correlated

with Conscientiousness, and with three facets of Conscientiousness (see Table 3). Relationship
satisfaction also correlated with the facet of E3: Assertiveness. Thus, males who were more satisfied
with their close relationships showed some of the same traits as males with high love scores.

Table 4
Pearson correlations with motives

Males

Females

Motives

I

P

C

RS

I

P

C

RS

Social Contact

0.18

0.18

0.12

0.10

0.04

0.03

0.07

0.00

Curiosity

0.31

0.26

0.20

0.03

0.08

0.06

0.07

0.11

Honor

0.29

0.22

0.32

0.10

0.16

0.05

0.01

0.12

Power

0.55**

0.44**

0.49**

0.25

0.15

0.06

0.18

0.02

Saving

0.13

0.12

0.07

0.22

0.10

0.02

0.14

0.19

Order

0.21

0.22

0.19

0.08

0.06

0.01

0.05

0.06

Idealism

0.37*

0.36*

0.38*

0.15

0.13

0.25*

0.01

0.04

Independence

0.09

0.07

0.04

0.17

0.23*

0.32**

0.24*

0.24*

Status

0.12

0.21

0.16

0.10

0.23*

0.17

0.25*

0.17

Vengeance

0.06

0.01

0.04

0.26

0.34**

0.29**

0.29**

0.32**

Eating

0.06

0.07

0.03

0.02

0.11

0.07

0.18

0.01

Romance

0.19

0.24

0.18

0.13

0.04

0.16

0.06

0.03

Family

0.31

0.34*

0.25

0.01

0.13

0.14

0.12

0.08

Phy. Activity

0.01

0.02

0.02

0.07

0.15

0.06

0.09

0.02

Acceptance

0.06

0.15

0.16

0.06

0.25*

0.20

0.26*

0.09

Tranquility

0.02

0.04

0.02

0.25

0.19

0.12

0.23*

0.11

I, Intimacy; P, Passion; C, Commitment; RS, Relationship Satisfaction.

*P < 0.05
**P < 0.01

846

G. Engel et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 839–853

For females, relationship satisfaction was associated with the domains of Extraversion and

Conscientiousness. A significant relationship was found also with one facet of Conscientiousness,
C6: Deliberation. Thus, females who reported greater relationship satisfaction are extraverted,
conscientious, and thoughtful and deliberate.

None of the motives was significantly related to relationship satisfaction for males. Vengeance

was negatively related to satisfaction for females.

3.3.2. Multiple regression

NEO-PI-R scores were regressed on RAS scores. For males, the combined domains were sig-

nificant predictors of relationship satisfaction [adj. R

2

=0.26, F (5,35)=3.40, P < 0.05]. As with

the love variables, Conscientiousness was the only significant predictor (t =3.51, P < 0.01,


=0.56). For females, the domains were also significant predictors of relationship satisfaction

[adj. R

2

=0.11, F (5,89)=3.13, P < 0.05]. Both Conscientiousness (t=2.60, P < 0.05, =0.28) and

Extraversion (t=2.27, P < 0.05, =0.26) were related to satisfaction. Similar to the result for
Passion, C6: Deliberation was the only facet related to satisfaction for females (t=2.85, P < 0.01,


=0.45).

Reiss Profiles motives were also regressed on relationship satisfaction. For males, the combined

motives were significant predictors of satisfaction [adj. R

2

=0.36, F (16, 35)=2.25, P < 0.05],

with Idealism (t=2.43, P < 0.05, =0.62) positively related, and Tranquility (t= 3.34, P < 0.01,


= 0.87) and Physical Activity (t= 2.23, P < 0.05, = 0.41) negatively related to satis-

faction. For females, Vengeance was negatively related to satisfaction (t= 2.08, P < 0.05,


= 0.34).

4. Discussion

4.1. Love and five-factor traits

Conscientiousness was a significant predictor of intimacy and passion for both males and

females, and of commitment for males. Somewhat surprisingly, Agreeableness and its facets such
as trust, tendermindedness, and compliance were not predictors of love. Why is conscientiousness
related to love? Conscientiousness involves purposeful self-control (Costa & McCrae, 1992).
Conscientious persons may be more likely to dutifully engage in loving behaviors toward their
partners. Conscientiousness also entails an achievement orientation (Costa & McCra) and is
associated with academic success (Dollinger & Orf, 1991; Goff & Ackerman, 1992) and occupa-
tional achievement (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Mount, Barrick, & Stewart, 1998; Piedmont &
Weinstein, 1994). Conscientious individuals may apply their achievement striving toward their
love relationships, and therefore express more love toward their partners in order to achieve
successful relationships. It is often said that people have to work at their relationships if they are
to succeed. The present data imply that conscientious persons tend to be motivated workers in
their love relationships, just as they are in jobs and academics.

Another approach to understanding the connection between conscientiousness and love is to

examine the components of love in Sternberg’s triangular theory. The relationship between con-
scientiousness and commitment is perhaps most easily understood. Commitment is a largely

G. Engel et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 839–853

847

cognitive component, involving a decision to engage in a relationship and maintain the relation-
ship over time. ‘‘Commitment is the extent to which a person is likely to stick with something or
someone and..persist until the goal underlying the commitment is achieved’’ (Sternberg, 1998, p.
12). Persons high in conscientiousness are reliable, persistent, and oriented to fulfilling their
obligations, an orientation that would likely lead to greater commitment.

Intimacy is a more emotional aspect of love (Sternberg, 1986). Research by Sternberg and

Grajek (1984) indicates that intimacy includes the following elements: ‘‘Desiring to promote the
welfare of the loved one, sharing oneself and one’s possessions with the loved one, being able to
count on the loved one in times of need, giving emotional support to the loved one’’ (p. 327).
These elements also would appear to be fostered by conscientious behavior. Sternberg (1998)
alludes to the effortful nature of intimacy, noting that intimacy develops slowly, through fits and
starts, and is difficult to achieve. Conscientiousness, too, involves effort and striving; thus, con-
scientious effort is likely to promote intimacy.

Sternberg (1986) asserted that, in contrast to intimacy and commitment, individuals have very

little conscious control over the amount of passion that they experience with a partner. Indeed,
common conceptions of passionate love often portray it as a process of ‘‘falling’’ in love or being
‘‘swept off one’s feet’’, beyond an individual’s control. However in the present study, the facet of
Deliberation was a significant predictor of passion for females. The Deliberation facet involves
the tendency to think carefully before acting, and to engage in a cautious, thoughtful, and delib-
erative process (Costa & McCrae, 1992). While initial attraction may well be a spontaneous
phenomenon, the present results suggest that, at least for females, the experience of passion in an
existing relationship is associated with careful and deliberate consideration. Also, the fact that the
Deliberation facet predicted passion for females but not males is consistent with Duck’s (1991)
conclusion that females fall in love more slowly than males, suggesting that passionate love may
involve a more deliberate process for females than males. Deliberation was not correlated with
any of the love variables for males. These findings are also consistent with the idea that mating,
from an evolutionary perspective, is a more ‘‘costly’’ process for females than males, requiring
greater investment by females in pregnancy, child-rearing, and related costs (Buss, 1988; Trivers,
1972). Females may therefore be more likely to carefully consider the consequences of engaging in
passionate love. Relatedly, Weber (2000) recently found that, for females, C6: Deliberation was
inversely related to the construct of sociosexuality, the willingness to engage in sex outside the
context of a committed relationship (Gangestad & Simpson, 1990).

In the regression for males, commitment was predicted by E3: Assertiveness (positively) and

N6: Vulnerability (negatively). Thus, males who are dominant, confident, and feel able to handle
stress and challenges are more committed in their close relationships. Conversely, non-assertive
males who feel vulnerable to threats may be more likely to have a ‘‘fear of commitment’’ and feel
threatened by the prospect of committing to a close relationship.

4.2. Love and motives

The Idealism motive (originally labelled ‘‘Citizenship’’ (Reiss & Havercamp, 1998) was a pre-

dictor of all three love variables for males. Idealism was not a predictor for females, but did
correlate with passion. The Idealism motive is the altruistic desire for social justice and fairness
(Reiss, 2000). Consistent with the results for Conscientiousness, the present findings indicate that

848

G. Engel et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 839–853

males who are motivated to be altruistic social citizens are also ‘‘good citizens’’ in their close
opposite-sex relationships, in the sense that they express greater intimacy, passion and commit-
ment. In other words, males who are socially idealistic report experiencing more love toward their
partners.

The Tranquility motive was a negative predictor of males’ intimacy and passion. Thus, males

who desire emotional calm and are strongly motivated to avoid stressful and painful experiences
reported lower levels of intimacy and passion. Sensitivity to emotional stress may interfere with
intimacy and passion because the pursuit of love is a potentially stressful and painful venture,
holding the possibility of rejection, betrayal, and relationship conflict. Note also the previous
finding for the Vulnerability facet; feeling vulnerable to threats (Vulnerability) and strongly
desiring to avoid stress (Tranquility) predicted lower levels of either intimacy, passion, or com-
mitment in males. In a related finding for females, the Acceptance motive was negatively asso-
ciated with passion. High scores on Acceptance reflect fear of social rejection (Reiss &
Havercamp, 1998). Thus, females who are relatively fearful of a particular type of painful
experience, social rejection, experienced less passion in their relationships.

For females, the Independence motive and passion were inversely related. This result is con-

sistent with Dion and Dion’s (1988) observation that romantic love involves interdependence,
and that a strong need for personal control and aversion to dependency on others inhibits
romantic love. Women tend to score lower than men on the Independence motive, reflecting a
more interdependent orientation (Reiss, 2000). In combination with the results for the Accep-
tance motive, it appears that females who are not highly fearful of rejection and do not have a
strong need to be independent experience greater passion.

For males, the Saving motive predicted intimacy and passion (negatively). The Saving motive is

the desire to collect and hoard money and material possessions (Reiss, 2000). Thus, males who
are highly motivated to collect material possessions demonstrated less intimacy and passion. As
in the choice between ‘‘love or money’’, a materialistic saving orientation seems to interfere with
relationship closeness. Strong desire for saving material possessions appears to be incompatible
with males’ intimate and passionate love of their relationship partners.

For females only, the Romance motive predicted passion and commitment. The Romance

motive is defined as the desire for sex and beauty (Reiss, 2000). That higher sexual motivation
would be linked to passionate love is not particularly surprising. With regard to commitment,
frequency of sex in a close, committed relationship is believed to reflect and possibly foster
greater investment (Mellen, 1981). This may be particularly true for females. Women are much
less willing than men to engage in casual sex; this large sex difference is nearly one standard
deviation (Oliver & Hyde, 1993). Women also have a more restricted sociosexual orientation, i.e.
they are less willing to engage in sex outside of a committed relationship (Simpson & Gangestad,
1991). Thus, a relationship between high sexual, romantic motivation and commitment in a
relationship would be more likely for females than males, as was found in the present study.

The power motive was a significant regression predictor of Intimacy and Commitment and was

correlated with all three love variables for males (average r=0.49). The power motive is defined
as the desire to influence others and is associated with leadership and a sense of competence
(Reiss, 2000). Perhaps males high in the desire for power use love as a benevolent tactic for
influencing their partners. Note also the correlation of C1: Competence with all three love vari-
ables for males. In any event, the correlation of power with love in males is consistent with the

G. Engel et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 839–853

849

widespread belief that women are often attracted by powerful men. Perhaps women realize that
the desire for power by males is in fact correlated with love. Also note the related correlation of
assertiveness (dominance) with the three love variables for males.

4.3. Relationship satisfaction

For both males and females, conscientiousness predicted relationship satisfaction as well as

love. This finding for relationship satisfaction is consistent with research that has found low
conscientiousness to be related to marital dissatisfaction (Botwin, Buss, & Schackelford, 1997),
the mate retention tactic of threatening infidelity (Buss, 1996), and actual infidelity in married
couples (Buss, 1991; Buss & Shackelford, 1997). Also, spouses with similar levels of con-
scientiousness show greater marital satisfaction (Nemechek & Olson, 1999).

For females, there was an inverse relationship between relationship satisfaction and the motive

of Vengeance. Not surprisingly, a strong desire to retaliate when offended was associated with
less relationship satisfaction. High scores on the Vengeance motive are associated with hostility,
competition, and aggression, whereas persons who score low on Vengeance view themselves as
kind, forgiving, and cooperative (Reiss, 2000), characteristics that would be more likely to con-
tribute to relationship satisfaction. For females, relationship satisfaction (but not love) was pre-
dicted also by Extraversion. Conflicting findings regarding extraversion have emerged in studies
of marital adjustment and satisfaction. Research has found that: Partner similarity in extraver-
sion is related (Zaleski, 1981) or unrelated (Nemechek & Olson, 1999) to marital satisfaction;
extraversion is related to marital dissatisfaction (Lester, Haig, & Monello, 1989); extraversion is
unrelated to marital adjustment (Eysenck & Wakefield, 1981); marital adjustment is related either
to wives being more extraverted than husbands (Bentler & Newcomb, 1978) or to husbands being
more extraverted (Cattell & Nesselroade, 1967). The present study assessed primarily dating
rather than married couples.

For males, significant motive predictors of satisfaction were Idealism, Tranquility, and Physical

Activity (the latter two motives inversely related to satisfaction). The reason for the inverse rela-
tionship between relationship satisfaction and physical activity is not readily apparent. Does the
amount of time and energy spent by males on physical activity and exercise detract from efforts to
develop a satisfying relationship? Or do males tend to react to an unsatisfactory relationship by
engaging in relatively more outlets involving physical activity? If the latter is true, exercise would
be an effect rather than a cause of relationship dissatisfaction. Additional research is needed to
explicate the causal nature of this relationship.

4.4. Limitations and future research

This study involved college-age adults in dating relationships. Additional research with older

adults is needed to determine if similar relationships between personality and relationship vari-
ables are found in married and longer-term relationships. The number of male participants was
relatively small for a multiple regression analysis; thus, replication with a larger number of male
participants would increase statistical power and might reveal relationships that were not detec-
ted in the present study. Also, the inclusion in future research of partner ratings of love and
relationship satisfaction, in addition to self-ratings, may help answer additional questions. For

850

G. Engel et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 839–853

example, are similar levels of intimacy, passion, and commitment reported by partner ratings and
self-ratings, i.e. do individuals perceive the love reportedly felt by their partners? How do dis-
crepancies between self and other-ratings of the love variables affect relationship satisfaction, and
what personality variables are related to such discrepancies?

Future research should also attempt to isolate causal relationships between variables examined

in this study. For example, are conscientious individuals more satisfied with their relationships
because they are more likely to exhibit particular behaviors that foster a positive relationship, or
because they are more conscientious and thorough in their selection of a compatible partner? In
regard to the latter possibility, Nemechek and Olson (1999) found that similarity in spouses’ level
of traits such as conscientiousness was associated with greater marital satisfaction. The relation-
ship of personality to the process of choosing a relationship partner is an important area for
future research.

To the extent that personality is related to love and relationship satisfaction, there may be

implications for the selection of appropriate relationship partners. Persons with a strong (or
weak) desire for intimacy, passion, or commitment in their relationships may be guided by the
identification of particular personality characteristics in a potential partner that are associated
with these components of love. Pre-marital counselors may also be aided by an understanding of
the motives and traits that are associated with dimensions of love. Broader questions can be
raised regarding if and how love can be fostered and promoted within relationships. Can people
become more loving by consciously attempting to develop the traits and motives that are related
to love? For example, can an individual become more loving by developing more conscientious
behavior in general, or at least in close relationships? Additional research is needed to explore the
intriguing potential causal interactions of personality and love.

References

Aron, A., & Westbay, L. (1996). Dimensions of the prototype of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70,

535–551.

Barrick, M., & Mount, M. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis. Per-

sonnel Psychology

, 44, 1–26.

Bentler, P. M., & Newcomb, M. D. (1978). Longitudinal study of marital success and failure. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology

, 46, 1053–1070.

Berscheid, E. (1988). Some comments on love’s anatomy: or, whatever happened to old-fashioned lust? In R. Stern-

berg, & M. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love (pp. 359–374). New Haven: Yale University Press.

Botwin, M. D., Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Personality and mate preferences: five factors in mate

selection and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality, 66, 107–136.

Buss, D. M. (1988). The evolution of human intrasexual competition: tactics of mate attraction. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology

, 54, 616–628.

Buss, D. M. (1991). Conflict in married couples: personality predictors of anger and upset. Journal of Personality, 59,

663–688.

Buss, D. M. (1996). Social adaptation and five major factors of personality. In J.S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model

of personality: theoretical perspectives

. New York: Guilford.

Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Susceptibility to infidelity in the first year of marriage. Journal of Research in

Personality

, 31, 193–221.

Cattell, R. B., & Nesselroade, J. R. (1967). Likeness and completeness theories examined by sixteen personality factor

measures on stable and unstably married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7, 351–361.

G. Engel et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 839–853

851

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment

Resources.

Davies, M. F. (1996). EPQ correlates of love styles. Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 257–259.
Davis, K., & Latty-Mann, H. (1987). Love styles and relationship quality: a contribution to validation. Journal of

Social and Personal Relationships

, 4, 409–428.

Dion, K. L., & Dion, K. K. (1988). Romantic love: Individual and cultural perspectives. In R. J. Sternberg & M. L.

Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Dollinger, S. J., & Orf, L. A. (1991). Personality and performance in ‘‘personality’’: conscientiousness and openness.

Journal of Research in Personality

, 25, 276–284.

Duck, S. (1991). Understanding relationships. New York: Guilford Press.
Eysenck, H. J., & Wakefield, J. A. (1981). Psychological factors as predictors of marital satisfaction. Advances in

Behavior Research and Therapy

, 3, 151–192.

Fehr, B. (1988). Prototype analysis of the concepts of love and commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-

chology

, 55, 557–579.

Fehr, B., & Russell, J. (1991). The concept of love viewed from a prototype perspective. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology

, 60, 425–438.

Gangestad, S., & Simpson, J. (1990). Toward an evolutionary history of female sociosexual variation. Journal of Per-

sonality

, 58, 69–96.

Goff, M., & Ackerman, P. L. (1992). Personality–intelligence relations: assessment of typical intellectual engagement..

ournal of Educational Psychology

, 84, 537–552.

Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 93–98.
Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (1986). A theory and method of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50,

392–402.

Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (1990). A relationship-specific version of the Love Attitudes Scale. Journal of Social

Behavior and Personality

, 5, 239–254.

Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1995). Gender differences and similarities in sex and love. Personal Relationships, 2, 55–65.
Lee, J. A. (1977). A typology of styles of loving. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 173–182.
Lester, D., Haig, C., & Monello, R. (1989). Spouse’s personality and marital satisfaction. Personality and Individual

Differences

, 10, 252–254.

Lester, D., & Philbrick, J. (1988). Correlates of love. Personality and Individual Differences, 9, 689–690.
Mallandain, I., & Davies, M. F. (1994). The colours of love: personality correlates of love styles. Personality and

Individual Differences

, 17, 557–560.

McAdams, D. P. (1995). What do we know when we know a person? Journal of Personality, 63, 365–396.
Mellen, S. L. (1981). The evolution of love. Oxford, UK: Freeman.
Mount, M., Barrick, M., & Stewart, G. (1998). Five-factor model of personality and performance in jobs involving

interpersonal interactions. Human Performance, 11, 145–165.

Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996). The self-fulfilling nature of positive illusions in romantic rela-

tionships: love is not blind, but prescient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1155–1180.

Nemechek, S., & Olson, K. R. (1999). Five-factor personality similarity and marital adjustment. Social Behavior and

Personality

, 27, 309–318.

Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 29–51.
Piedmont, R., & Wernstein, H. (1994). Predicting supervisor ratings of job performance using the NEOPersonality

Inventory. Journal of Psychology, 128, 255–265.

Reiss, S. (2000). Who am I: the sixteen basic desires that motivate our actions and define our personalities. New York:

Tarcher/Putnam.

Reiss, S., & Havercamp, S. M. (1998). Toward a comprehensive assessment of fundamental motivation: factor struc-

ture of the Reiss profiles. Psychological Assessment, 10, 97–106.

Richardson, D. R., Medvin, N., & Hammock, G. (1988). Love styles, relationship experience, and sensation seeking: a

test of validity. Personality and Individual Differences, 9, 645–651.

Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: evidence for convergent and dis-

criminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870–883.

852

G. Engel et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 839–853

Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Cupid’s arrow: the course of love through time. London: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Construct validation of a triangular love scale. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 313–

335.

Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 119–138.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grajek, S. (1984). The nature of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 312–329.
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.

Wan, W., Luk, C., & Lai, J. (2000). Personality correlates of loving styles among Chinese students in Hong Kong.

Personality and Individual Differences

, 29, 169–175.

Weber, D. A. (2000). Analysis of the relationships between personality traits, motives, and sociosexuality. Unpublished

masters thesis, Fort Hays State University.

Wiggins, J. S., & Trapnell, P. D. (1997). Personality structure: The return of the Big Five. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, &

S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Winter, D. G., John, O. P., Stewart, A. J., Klohnen, E. C., & Duncan, L. E. (1998). Traits and motives: toward an

integration of two traditions in personality research. Psychological Review, 105, 230–250.

Woll, S. B. (1989). Personality and relationship correlates of loving styles. Journal of Research in Personality, 23, 480–

505.

Zaleski, A. (1981). Psychoticism and marital satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 2, 246–254.

G. Engel et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 839–853

853