Psychology

Chapter 1
Introduction

Relationships are important facets of human existence in fact, a healthy and positive interpersonal relationship is an indicator of positive adjustment and functioning (Fowler  Christakis, 2009). As social beings, people crave for relationships it satisfies the need for belongingness and love. There are several forms of relationships however, it is intimate relationships that each one of us yearns for.

Intimate relationships are characterized by love, commitment and sex. Love has been conceptualized as into six love styles by Lee (1978) and elaborated by Hendrick and Hendrick (1989). The love styles are ludus the game-playing, noncommittal love, agape or selfless love, mania is dependent and possessive love, storge or down-to-earth, friendship love, pragma is the logical, shopping list love and eros is passionate, lustful love.

Commitment and sex is a distinguishing characteristic of intimate relationships as it means exclusivity and intimacy. Commitment is a decision to be faithful and loyal to the other partner, this is a psychological contract between two individuals.  Sex is the highest form of intimacy and although in some cases it can occur without love or commitment, an intimate relationship cannot be classified without sexual activities (Gonzaga, Keltner, Campos,  Altemus   Turner, 2006).

Intimate relationships usually occur in heterogeneous relations, although it is not uncommon in homogenous relations as well. Intimate relationships can be classified as healthy and positive and it can be abusive and negative. The most ideal would be that all intimate relationships are healthy and positive and provide the couple with the support, love and encouragement. However, the reality of abusive intimate relationships is ever present (Marshall  Holtzworth-Munroe, 2010).

Unhealthy intimate relationships occur because of the individual personalities of the couple and their previous experiences and how they relate and interact with their partners. Even though unhealthy relationships are detrimental to those involved in the relationship, some endure due to the social stigma attached to abusive relationships that not many come forward to seek help or report it (Marshall  Holtzworth-Munroe, 2010). The number of individuals involved in abusive relationships is only an estimate but most researchers agree that it is higher.

Measuring the quality of intimate relationships has been the object of researches and is even a popular subject in popular culture as more and more people are becoming aware of their rights and roles in a relationship (Wilkins  Gareis, 2006). However, it is difficult still for most people to come out and say that they are being abused physically, emotionally or psychologically (Marshall  Holtzworth-Munroe, 2010). The quality of relationships however can be judged in terms of the dominant love styles, the communication styles and the happiness of those in the relationship.

Healthy and positive intimate relationships can be characterized by eros and agape (Lee, 1978), the communication between partners is open, truthful and genuine (Caravelli, Lubrano-Lavadera  Malagoli Togliatti, 2008), and also there is happiness in the relationship and between the partners. Communication style models have indicated that there are differences in how partners communicate depending on the topic or concern of the partners (Cuming   Rapee, 2010).

Happiness has been the focus of positive psychology this past decade. Happiness has been conceptualized into pleasure, engagement and meaning (Hills  Argylle, 2002). Relationships had been found to be highly associated with happiness (Fowler  Christakis, 2009), that is, interpersonal relationships are a source of happiness for a large number of individuals. Happiness however is influenced by cultural norms and expectations, but only in how it is manifested and expressed as happiness is a universal emotion (Dolan, Peasgood  White, 2008).

Cultural differences are present in every facet of human behavior, and more so in how people interact and relate. Certain cultures have sanctioned and acceptable ways of interacting, communicating and expressing emotions such as love and happiness (Schmitt et.al, 2009). Cultural differences are important to study as it verifies psychological constructs and conceptualizations that had been mainly western in orientation. The Asian culture or perspective had been differentiated from the American and western perspective in terms of cultural orientation.

Building on the complexities of human relationships and the concept of love, happiness, communication and intimacy, this study attempts to explore and determine the differences of the love styles, communication pattern and happiness of young Hong Kong professionals within their intimate relationships. This study seeks to find information about the dominant love style among Hong Kong couples, their communication patterns and their happiness in their relationships. This study also aims to find evidence of the association of love style, communication styles and happiness as it predicts the quality of intimate relationships.

Background of the Study
Successful intimate relationships are those where both partners are happy, content, find meaning in each other and share a deep commitment and love for each other. And all people dream to have such a relationship, but this kind of relationship does not happen overnight. It takes many years of hard work and dedication, as well as a deep emotional bond and desire for each other.  However, the quality of intimate relationships is as much a function of the individuals choices and behavior, and there is no way of telling whether ones lover or partner at the moment will be the right one (McGregor,  McAdams  Little, 2006).

If only people could tell whether a person will be good for him or her, then much heartache and despair could be avoided, but, individuals need to invest his or her time and effort in a relationship and find out if this relationship is a positive influence to him or her. Differentiating healthy intimate relationships from the not so healthy or negative relationships would provide information on how to make relationships work and how to avoid a not so healthy relationship.

Love styles, communication styles and happiness will be used in this study as indicators of the quality of the intimate relationship of young Hong Kong professionals. Love styles had been conceptualized into six kinds, varying from the most self-less to the more pragmatic kind. It would be interesting to find out what kind of love styles exists within the intimate relationships of young professionals in Hong Kong. Also, communication styles are important in any form of relationship, and finding out how partners or lovers communicate would provide knowledge of the different communication styles practiced in intimate relationships (Kline, Horton  Zhang, 2008). Happiness will also be considered in this study since it is the most highly associated emotion to relationships. Happiness also has become a research interest in the field of positive psychology.  By focusing on happiness within intimate relationships, the sources of happiness can be made known and the quality of the relationship can be inferred from it.

The study will be centered on the perspective of young Hong Kong professionals, who have become exposed to western ideals and thoughts on intimate relationships, love and sexual activities (Frster,  zelsel  Epstude, 2010). It is hoped that this study would provide information as to whether cultural norms and traditions in Hong Kong are manifested in the intimate relationships of its people. This is an important consideration since not many studies on human relationships and emotions had been conducted in the Hong Kong context.

Statement of the Problem
It is human nature to yearn for a partner, whose dreams, desires, fears and hopes can be shared with, and one can be passionate with. However, finding the right partner and having a successful relationship is an elusive goal for most. The times are changing and young adults have differing conceptions of what makes a relationship work and its dynamics. Many young adults are delaying marriage and are content to be single, the reason for which is not finding the right person to be with. Moreover, intimate relationships can occur and dissolve at any given time due to the changing concepts about marriage, love and intimacy. It is important to determine the kind of intimate relationships that young professionals in Hong Kong have at this given time.

This quantitative descriptive and correlational study on the love styles, communication styles and happiness among the intimate relationships of young Hong Kong professionals seeks to describe, determine and explore the quality of intimate relationships based on the love styles, communication styles and happiness of the partners. This study also aims to identify the love styles and communication styles that characterize healthy and positive intimate relationships, as well as determine which variables predict the quality of intimate relationships.

Purpose of the Study
This study aims to determine the quality of intimate relationships of young professionals in Hong Kong in terms of their love styles, communication styles and happiness. This study will be conducted within the context of young adults in Hong Kong and their intimate relationships. The focus on love styles, communication styles and happiness will provide knowledge about the distinguishing characteristics of positive and healthy intimate relationships from the negative and possibly abusive ones. Moreover, this study would also identify which love styles, communication styles and happiness will likely predict the quality of intimate relationships. The results of this study would aid in building knowledge and conceptualizations of love styles and happiness as well as provide basis for developing strategies to improve the quality of intimate relationships.

Research Questions
This quantitative descriptive and correlational study on the quality of intimate relationships of young Hong Kong professionals and their love styles, communication styles and happiness aims to specifically answer the following questions
What are the love styles of young professionals in Hong Kong in their intimate relationships
What are the communication styles of young professionals in Hong Kong in their intimate relationships
How happy are the young professionals in Hong Kong in their intimate relationships
What is the quality of the intimate relationships of young professionals in Hong Kong
What love style and communication style are highly associated with healthy intimate relationships
What love style and communication style are highly associated with unhealthy intimate relationships
Is there a difference in the happiness of young professionals in their intimate relationships
What variables predict the quality of intimate relationships of young professionals in Hong Kong.

Chapter 2
Review of Related Literature
This study on the love styles, communication pattern and happiness of Hong Kong young professionals in their intimate relationships aims to describe the said variables in the context of intimate relationships. This chapter will present the review of related studies and literature on love styles, communication patterns and happiness. The objective of this chapter is to provide a background of the theoretical and empirical findings of previous studies in relation to the present study.

Love Styles
Communication Patterns
Coping with relationship problems requires some specific skills. Research on relationship functioning in distressed and non-distressed couples in intimate relationships suggests that communication and problem-solving skills are particularly important in coping with relationship problems and maintaining a satisfying relationship (e.g., Raush, Barry, Hertel,  Swain, 1974). Numerous studies demonstrate that the nature of a couples marital interactions, especially during conflict, is associated with their marital adjustment (e.g., Christensen, 1988 Christensen  Shenk, 1991 Gottman, Markman,  Notarius, 1977). Research suggests that good communication patterns facilitate the resolution of daily marital tensions and intimate relationships and helps to prevent the accumulation of lasting resentments (Lowenthal  Haven, 1968 Roy, 1978). There is also evidence demonstrating that certain patterns of communication during conflict are associated with longitudinal changes in relationship satisfaction (Bradbury  Karney, 1993 Heavey, Christensen,  Malamuth, 1995 Heavey, Layne,  Christensen, 1993).

Studies examining relationship development have found that factors such as poor communication and problem-solving skills, when present prior to marriage or during exclusive dating or early in marriage, can predict the development of relationship distress later in marriage (Markman, 1981). In fact, longitudinal studies have suggested that dysfunctional communication patterns precede the development of marital problems and that early signs of future distress are potentially identifiable in premarital interaction, regardless of the couples level of premarital relationship satisfaction (Markman, 1981).

Although the commonly held belief is that compatibility between couples predicts marital success, reviews of the literature suggest that the quality of the couples communication is a significantly better predictor of future marital satisfaction (Gottman, 1979). As Levinger (cited in Markman, Floyd, Stanley,  Storaasli, 1988) stated, What counts in making a happy marriage is not so much how compatible you are, but how you deal with incompatibility (p.210). To test this theory, Markman et al. (1988) studied the impact of an intervention designed to prevent divorce and marital distress that emphasizes communication and problem-solving skills, clarifying and sharing expectations, and sensualsexual enhancement. Although post-intervention results indicated that couples learned the skills taught in the program, no group differences showed on self-report measures of relationship quality. However, after three years, intervention couples showed higher levels of both relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction, as well as lower levels of problem intensity.

The results regarding women were unexpected, results from other studies also suggest that increased levels of female positive communication might be damaging to the couple over time. For example, Gottman and Krokoff (1989) found that wives positive verbal behavior was related positively to concurrent marital satisfaction but negatively to satisfaction after three years. Similarly, Heavey, Layne, and Christensen (1993) found that wives positive communication was correlated with higher concurrent marital satisfaction but was not related to satisfaction measured one year later. The reverse correlation emerged for husbands positive communication. Additionally, Karney and Bradbury (1997) reported a similar relationship between newlywed wives positive communication and later changes in marital satisfaction during the first four years of marriage based on growth curve analysis. Specifically, they found that more negative andor less positive communication by husbands was associated with greater declines in wives satisfaction over time. However, they reported that more negative andor less positive communication from wives predicted slower declines in husbands and wives marital satisfaction. Gottman, Coan, Carrere, and Swanson (1998) also found that anger expressed by newlyweds did not predict unhappiness or divorce three years later.

In a discussion of their results, Karney and Bradbury (1997) suggest that higher negative communication behaviors in wives may represent a willingness to wrestle with difficult relationship issues. In other words, they are willing to assert themselves and address problems. Although these interactions may be objectionable at the time, they are likely to be part of a beneficial communication process in the long term. In essence, these results suggest that higher female assertive negative communication is associated with positive marital outcomes in the long run.

In two longitudinal studies of marital interaction using observational coding of couples attempting to resolve a high-conflict issue, Gottman and Krokoff (1989) found that a different pattern of results predicts concurrent marital satisfaction than predicts change in marital satisfaction over three years. Findings suggested that some marital interaction patterns, such as disagreement and anger exchanges, which have usually been considered detrimental to a marriage, may not be harmful in the long run. These patterns of interaction were found to be associated with unhappiness and negative interaction concurrently, but they were predictive of improvement in marital satisfaction longitudinally. However, three specific interaction patterns were identified as dysfunctional in terms of marital deterioration longitudinally defensiveness (which includes whining), stubbornness, and withdrawal from interaction. These interaction patterns were found to be more deleterious if they are characteristic of husbands.

According to Gottman (1993), there seems to be a constant that is consistent across all types of stable couples, the ratio of positive to negative interactions during conflict resolution. Thus, it appears that neither conflict avoidance nor intense conflict engagement and escalation are necessarily dysfunctional. Negative interactions appear to be dysfunctional only when they are not balanced with approximately five times as much positive feeling and interaction.

With so many negative consequences of this demandwithdraw pattern, it is important to understand the reasons behind its enactment. Some researchers have suggested that these communication styles have their roots in the biological differences between men and women (e.g., Gottman  Levenson, 1988). Other researchers have suggested that early socialization experiences of men and women lead to the observed differences in communication styles (e.g., Christensen, 1987, 1988 Jacobson, 1989). For example, women tend to be socialized to be more expressive and relationship focused (e.g., Broverman, Vogel, Broverman, Clarkson,  Rosenkranz, 1972 Margolin, Talovic,  Weinstein, 1983).

This socialization may lead to more demanding behaviors when the tendency to be expressive is thwarted (Markman, Silvern, Clements,  Kraft-Hanak, 1993). Conversely, gender socialization for men tends to lead them to be more instrumental and problem-solving focused, which may lead to withdrawal behaviors when they are unable to directly solve a problem (Markman et al., 1993). These socialization differences can also be seen in studies that have shown that women tend to desire more closeness and men more autonomy, and that the level of closeness or autonomy desired is related to the amount of demanding or withdrawing behavior (Christensen, 1987, 1988 Christensen  Shenk, 1991).

Yet another explanation of this demandwithdraw behavior pattern is the specific goals that women and men have when engaging in a discussion about their relationship. This explanation is referred as the conflict-structure hypothesis (Christensen  Heavey, 1990 Heavey et al., 1993). It refers to the idea that the observed behavioral patterns are the result of what the discussion is going to accomplish for the individuals involved. For example, women are believed to have less power in a relationship, and thus they are more likely to try to press for a change in the relationship (Christensen, 1987, 1988).

However, men are believed to have more power in a relationship and therefore have an incentive to keep the relationship the same, thus they withdraw from discussions about the relationship (Christensen, 1987, 1988). Consistent with this conflict-structure hypothesis Christensen and Heavey (1990) and Heavey et al. (1993) found that demandwithdraw differences between women and men were only significant during discussions in which the women, as opposed to men, desired the most change.

Taken together these views suggest that, although undesirable demand withdraw behaviors may have their roots in biological predispositions and socialization experiences, they will be increasingly present in discussions where an individual believes that he or she will have difficulty achieving their goals. This idea is consistent with Markman et al.s (1993) suggestion that when womens and mens behavioral tendencies are thwarted, they will engage in more demandwithdraw behaviors. This is also consistent with the work of Christensen and colleagues (Christensen  Heavey, 1990 Heavey etal., 1993) who demonstrated that in situations where one partner has a desire to achieve a specific relationship goal, but has less power to achieve it, they will demand more. Accordingly, it may be important to assess the perceived difficulty of a situation and its effect on a couples behavior.

Another important issue in understanding this demandwithdraw pattern is whether this destructive way of dealing with relationship issues is present before marriage or whether it is learned during the course of marriage (Noller, Feeney, Bonnell,  Callan, 1994). Kelley, Huston, and Cate (1985) suggested that, in general, communication behaviors appear to be relatively stable over time. Specifically, Kelley et al. (1985) reported that married couples in conflict acknowledged that they were often in conflict before marriage. In addition, Nolle r et al. (1994) found that couples communication patterns just before marriage remained stable for a 2-year period after marriage. These findings suggest that perhaps the blueprint for marital communication is established well before the marriage. Therefore, understanding of marital communication must include a focus on the communication patterns of dating couples.

However, few studies have directly assessed the occurrence of this pattern of communication prior to marriage in general, or during the dating process specifically. One exception is Markman et al. (1993), who found that dating relationships often involved men complaining more about their partners demand behaviors. Interestingly, Markman et al. (1993) found that women did not express more complaints about their partners withdraw behaviors. Thus, only partial support for the demandwithdraw pattern in dating couples was found. Yet, a limiting factor in the study by Markman and his colleagues (1993) is that they focused only on complaints about problem areas in the relationship as opposed to all areas of interaction. Therefore, the precipitating factor behind the observed differences is not known or understood.

Happiness
To explain happiness, what it means, where it stands in psychology and mental health,
and what effects it, let us start with a study by Seligman. Seligman (1998) reports that for the
treatment of an illness, just fixing the broken part is not sufficient. Rather, the inner parts have
to be cared for to be able to go through a complete treatment process. In addition, he reports that
the mission of psychology which is improving the lives of people and nurturing seems to have
both been forgotten, instead, there seems to be too much focus on what he labels as victimology.
Mainstream psychology, with a variety of specialties, seem to have geared more toward
dysfunction and problems rather than healthy emotions and well functioning. However, there are
a few people in the area of psychology that are more concerned with humans prosperity and
people feeling good or functioning well (Argyle, 1987 Bradburn, 1969).

Huppert (2005) reports that a detailed look at the reasons behind this neglect of the well
being rather than the focus on dysfunction indicates that most parts of psychology seem to have
been affected by the Western medical model of health which is the absence of disease and the
definition that good functioning is the absence of dysfunction. Huppert (2005) further indicates
that this view of dysfunction is even more obvious in neuropsychology which understands and
defines normal functioning of the brain by studying the brain disorders. While there is no doubt
that much can be learned by this approach but it can neglect the underlying mechanism of above
average or exceptional performances. Likewise, in the field of mental health and psychology,
research on negative emotions like fear, depression, and anger have little revealing information
on positive emotions like love, happiness, and contentment.

To discuss what happiness is and why it is important, when it comes to feeling good,
happiness comes more easily to the mind. Cohen (2002) reports that happiness is a constructive
notion and is essential in upholding a healthy life style. Diener and Diener (2008) report eight
recognized elements of true psychological wealth Life contentment and happiness, spirituality
and having a meaningful life, affirmative mind set and emotions, loving social relationships,
taking on fulfilling activities and work, moral values and principals and having life goals to
attain them, physical and mental health, and material satisfaction to meet needs.

To refer to the definition of happiness, happiness predictors and definitions have been
somehow neglected until recently (Argyle, 2001 Eysenck, 1990 Myers, 1992) even though the
major symptoms of unhappiness which are depression and anxiety have been investigated
intensely by researchers (Seligman, 1991). But one study that seem to be relevant to the subject
of this research is that of Tatarkiewicz (1976) who defines happiness as a sense of overall
satisfaction with ones whole life. Other definitions of happiness characterize it as a crucial
motivator for humans and a positive internal experience (Lu et al., 2001). Perhaps one of more
complete definitions of happiness is the one by Hills and Argyle (200) who reported happiness to
be a multidimensional entity consisting of emotional and cognitive parts.

There are different models of defining happiness, but one that seems more relevant to this
study may be that of Hayborn (2003) which explains happiness within the context of three points
of views Hedonism, life satisfaction, and affective state theory. Hayborn (2003) explains
hedonism as the individuals ability to find mostly pleasure in life as a whole experience. He
explains life satisfaction as a personal attitudes toward life in which positive attitude of the total
experience of life creates more happiness and he explains the affective state of happiness in
relation to the individuals overall emotional state.

Hills and Argyle (2001) did a study to find the relationship between happiness and
extraversion and emotional stability and found out that happiness is more than one dimensional
which consists of both emotional as well as cognitive elements. This study used the Oxford
Happiness Inventory (OHI). The result indicated that emotional stability was more linked with
happiness than with extraversion. In addition, the study concludes that emotional stability is
related to most of the 29 items of the OHI and the singular predictor of happiness in younger
generation. Furthermore, their study indicates people who are worried a lot and experience a lot
of anxiety are less happy that people who tend to be calm and in control.

Chapter 3
Research Methods

Research Method
Research
Instruments
Dyadic Adjustment Scale The Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS Spainer, 1976) is a global assessment of marital satisfaction. The DAS is a 32-item self-report measure of overall marital adjustment that has been widely used in the marital literature and has been shown to have high reliability (Cronbachs alpha  .96 Spainer, 1976). Scores range from 0 to 151. Higher scores indicate greater satisfaction. The mean of married couples is 114.8 with a standard deviation of 17.8. Couples score below 97 (one standard deviation below the mean) are generally considered to be distressed. The DAS has good internal consistency and is strongly correlated with other measures of relationship satisfaction such as the Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Test. The DAS successfully differentiates married and divorced couples, distressed and non-distressed couples, and clinic and non-clinic samples.

Communication Patterns Questionnaire, Short Form The Communications Patterns Questionnaire, Short Form (CQPSF) is a brief version of the Communications Patterns Questionnaire (CPQ Christensen, 1987, 1988 Christensen  Sullway, 1984). It assesses spouse perceptions of dyadic communication about relationship problems. Each partner indicates on a 9-point scale the likelihood that the couple will interact in a specified manner when discussing a problem. All behaviors are assessed at the dyad level (e.g., mutual avoidance) rather than at the individual level. This measure contains four theoretically derived subscales three asymmetrical communication subscales and one symmetrical positive communication subscale. The first two asymmetrical subscales focus on demandwithdraw interactions in which the spouses take opposite roles in the discussion. In this study, one subscale assessed the likelihood of the patient demanding while his or her partner withdraws, and the other assessed the likelihood of the patients partner demanding while the patient withdraws. The symmetrical overall positive communication subscale consists of three items assessing mutual discussion, mutual expression, and mutual negotiation. Previous research has demonstrated acceptable reliability and validity of the CPQSF (Christensen, 1987, 1988 Christensen  Heavey, 1990).

The Communication Patterns Questionnaire, Short Form (CPQSF) (Christensen, 1987, 1988 Christensen  Sullaway, 1984) is designed to assess an individuals perception of the way that discussions with their partner are generally conducted. The participant indicates on a 9-point scale (1, very unlikely to 9, very likely) the likelihood that the couple interacts in a specific manner (e.g., mutual negotiation or mutual blame) when discussing a specific issue. All behaviors are assessed at the level of the dyad (e.g., mutual avoidance) rather than at the level of the individual (e.g., man avoids).

The measures four sub-scales assess four dyadic communication patterns. These communication subscale s address (a) the likelihood that the husband is demanding, while the wife withdraws (e.g., man pressures, nags, or demands, while woman withdraws, becomes silent, or refuses to discuss
the matter further) (b) the likelihood that the wife is demanding, while the husband withdraws (e.g., woman pressures, nags, or demands, while man withdraws, becomes silent, or refuses to discuss the matter further) (c) the total demandwithdraw communication behaviors of the couple, which is the sum of the first two subscales and (d) the positive communication behaviors of the couples (e.g., both members suggest possible solutions and compromises). Higher scores on a subscale mean that the person is reporting that the couple participates in more of those type of communication behaviors during discussion of a specific issue.

The internal consistency reliability of the CPQSF has been demonstrated previously (Christensen, 1987, 1988 Christensen  Sullaway, 1984) on three of the subscales positive communication (a  .87) husband withdrawwife demand (a  .66), and wife-demandhusband-withdraw (a  .71).

QUESTIONNAIRE NAME AND AUTHOR Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS)Sonja Lyubomirsky, Ph.D.WHAT THE QUESTIONNAIRE MEASURESThe SHS is a 4-item scale of global subjective happiness. Two items ask respondents to characterize themselves using both absolute ratings and ratings relative to peers, whereas the other two items offer brief descriptions of happy and unhappy individuals and ask respondents the extent to which each characterization describes them. The SHS has been validated in 14 studies with a total of 2,732 participants. Data has been collected in the United States from students on two college campuses and one high school campus, from community adults in two California cities, And from older adults, as well as from students and community adults in Moscow, Russia. Results have indicated that the SHS has high internal consistency, which has been found to be stable across samples. Test-retest and self-peer correlations have suggested good to excellent reliability, and construct validation studies of convergent and discriminant validity have confirmed the use of this scale to measure the construct of subjective happiness.KEY REFERENCES1. Lyubomirsky, S.,  Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46, 137-155.2. Lyubomirsky, S.,  Ross, L. (1997). Hedonic consequences of social comparison A contrast of happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1141-1157.3. Lyubomirsky, S.,  Ross, L. (1999). Changes in attractiveness of elected, rejected, and precluded alternatives A comparison of happy and unhappy individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 988-1007.4. Lyubomirsky, S.,  Tucker, K. L. (1998). Implications of individual differences in subjective happiness for perceiving, interpreting, and thinking about life events. Motivation and Emotion, 22, 155-186.5. Lyubomirsky, S. (2001). Why are some people happier than others The role of cognitive and motivational processes in well-being. American Psychologist, 56, 239-249.

Directions
Listed below are several statements that reflect different attitudes about love. For each statement fill in the blank using the response that indicates how much you agree or disagree with that statement. The items refer to a specific love relationship.
The 6 styles are marked A to F in the questionnaire, corresponding to the order above Eros to Agape.
Whenever possible, answer the questions with your current partner in mind. If you are not currently dating anyone, answer the questions with your most recent partner in mind. If you have never been in love, answer in terms of what you think your responses would most likely be. There is no right or wrong answers - we each carry traits from the different styles of love.
For each question score the following
(1) Strongly Agree, (2) Moderately Agree, (3) Neutral- neither Agree or Disagree, (4) Moderately Disagree, and (5) Strongly Disagree

Love Style A_____________________
____ My partner and I were attracted to each other immediately after we first met.
_____My partner and I have the right physical chemistry between us.
____ Our lovemaking is intense and satisfying.
_____I feel that my partner and I were meant for each other.
_____My partner and I became emotionally involved rather quickly.
_____My partner and I really understand each other.
_____My partner fits my ideal standards for physical beauty handsomeness.

Love Style B_____________________
____ I try to keep my partner a little uncertain about my commitment to himher.
____ I believe that what my partner does not know about me wont hurt himher.
____ I have sometimes had to keep my partner from finding out about other partners.
____ I could get over my affair with my partner pretty easily and quickly.
____ My partner would get upset if heshe knew some of things Ive done with others.
_____When my partner gets too dependent on me, I want to back off a little.
_____I enjoy playing the game of love with my partner and a number of other partners.

Love Style C_____________________
____ It is hard for me to say exactly when our friendship turned into love.
____ To be genuine, our love first required caring for a while.
____ I expect to always be friends with my partner.
____ Our love is the best kind because it grew out of a long friendship.
____ Our friendship merged gradually into love over time.
____ Our love is really a deep friendship, not a mysterious, mystical emotion.
____ Our love relationship is the most satisfying because it developed from a good friendship.

Love Style D_____________________
____ I considered why my partner what my partner was going to become in life before I committed myself to himher.
____ I tried to plan my life carefully before choosing my partner.
____ In choosing my partner, I believe it was best to love someone with a similar background.
____ A main consideration in choosing my partner was how heshe would reflect on my family.
____ An important factor in choosing my partner was whether or not heshe would be a good parent.
____ One consideration in choosing my partner was how heshe would reflect on my career.
____ Before getting very involved with my partner, I tried to figure out how compatible hisher hereditary background would be with mine in case we ever had children.

Love Style E_____________________
____ When things are not right with my partner and me, my stomach gets upset.
____ If my partner and I broke up, I would get so depressed that I would even think of suicide.
____ Sometimes I get so excited about being in love with my partner that I cannot sleep.
____ When my partner does not pay attention to me, I feel sick all over.
____ Since I have been in love with my partner, I have had trouble concentrating on anything else.
____ I cannot relax if I suspect that partner is with someone else.
____ If my partner ignores me for a while, I sometimes do stupid things to try to get hisher attention back.

Love Style F_____________________
____ I try to always help my partner though difficult times.
____ I would rather suffer myself than let my partner suffer.
____ I cannot be happy unless I place my partners happiness before my own.
____ I am usually willing to sacrifice my own wishes to let my partner achieve hishers.
____ Whatever I own is my partners to use as heshe chooses.
____ When my partner gets angry with me, I still love him her fully and unconditionally.
____ I would endure all things for the sake of my partner.

Love Attitudes Scale retrieved from httpiws.ccccd.eduemcdonaldhuman sexualityHandouts_to_downloadLove Attitudes Scale-Chapter 7.htm on 100405. C. Hendrick  S.S. Hendrick (1990). A relationship-specific version of the Love Attitude Scale, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 239-254

Eros
The Eros lover is characterized by passion, though a passion broader than just a physical one. The Eros lover tends to be drawn toward a preferred physical type, and thus there may be an immediate recognition or aha when meeting a potential love partner. This lover is intense and wants to be involved with a partner on all levels, becoming physically affectionate (and intimate), talking for hours, and learning all about the partner. The Eros lover is fully and openly present, is self-confident and trusting, and balances intensity with an appropriate sense of boundaries.

Ludus
The Ludus lover, in contrast, is not interested in intensity, but rather experiences love as a game to be played for mutual enjoyment but not necessarily with any serious outcome in mind. Ludic lovers do not have a preferred physical type. Although ludic lovers may be in a partnered relationship with someone, ludic love is best played with several partners at a time, so that different people may be enjoyed for different qualities, in different activities, with no one person or relationship taking precedence over another. A ludic lover may hurt a partner inadvertently, but the goal is to enjoy relationships with a variety of people, with everyone having fun and no one getting hurt.

Storge
The Storge lover is someone who builds a love relationship on a strong base of friendship. The goal isA companionable, secure, trusting relationship with a partner who is similar in terms of attitudes and values. This similarity is much more important to Storge than physical appearance or sexual satisfaction because this orientation to love is more likely to seek long-term commitment rather than short-term excitement. (S. Hendrick  Hendrick, 1992, p. 65)

Pragma
The Pragma lover is all that the name implies, including practical and pragmatic. A Pragma lover may or may not have a preferred physical type, but he or she will surely have a virtual (or actual) shopping list of qualities sought in a partner. This type of lover may profit from working with a matchmaker or a computer dating service, in which inappropriate relationship candidates will be screened out. The pragmatic lover isnt looking for great excitement and drama, but, rather, for a suitable partner with whom a satisfying, rewarding life can be built (S. Hendrick  Hendrick, 1992, p. 66).

Mania
The Mania lover is also aptly characterized by the love style name, in that emotional highs and lows, as well as dependence, possessiveness, jealousy, and insecurity are typically present. A manic lover yearns for a love relationship but finds it elusive, because she or he seems compelled to push for commitment from a partner, does not really trust the commitment even if it is forthcoming, and is always afraid that the partner will find someone else. Another aspect of Mania is physical symptoms, such as difficulty eating or sleeping. Overall, the Mania lover always seems to be looking for the cloud around the silver lining.

Agape
The Agape lover is the rarest type of lover. Agape is characterized by altruism, such that the partners welfare is more important than ones own welfare, and what one can give in a relationship is more important than what one gets. Indeed, Agape has much in common with compassionate love. The idealism of Agape means that there is no one preferred physical type in a partner, and indeed, sensuality and sexuality are likely to be much less important than more spiritual qualities. Although pure Agape is unlikely to exist on the physical plane of this world, agapic qualities are extremely important as relationships encounter inevitable ups and downs.

APPENDIX C DYADIC ADJUSTEMENT SCALE (DAS)
Directions Most persons have disagreements in their relationships. Circle the number below that indicates the approximate extent of agreement or disagreement between you and your partner for each item on the following list.

Always AgreeAlmost Always AgreeOccasionally FrequentlyDisagree DisagreeAlways DisagreeAlmost Always DisagreeHandling family finances543210Matters of recreation543210Religious matters543210Demonstrations ofaffection543210Friends543210Sex relations543210Conventionality(correct or properbehavior)543210Philosophy of life543210Ways of dealing withparents or in-laws543210Aims, goals, and thingsbelieved important543210Amount of time spenttogether543210Making major decisions543210Household tasks543210Leisure time andinterests and activities54321015. Career decisions543210 16. How often do you discuss or have you considered divorce, separation
or terminating your relationshipAllthe timeMost of the timeMore often
than not OccasionallyRarelyNever01234517. How often do you oryour mate leave thehouse after a fight01234518. In general, how oftendo you think thatthings between youand your partner aregoing well54321019. Do you confide inyour mate54321020. Do you ever regret thatyou married (or livedtogether)01234521. How often do you andyour partner quarrel01234522. How often do you andyour mate get on eachothers nerves012345
Almost
Every
Every Day Day Occasionally Rarely Never
Do you kiss your mate 4 3 2 1 0
All of Most of Some of Very few None of
them them them of them them
Do you and your mate
engage in outside
interests together 4 3 2 1 0
How often would you say the following events occur between you and your mate
Have a stimulatingNeverLess than once a monthOnce or twice a monthOnce or twice a weekOnce a dayMore oftenexchange of ideas012345Laugh together012345Calmly discusssomething012345Work togetheron a project012345
These are some things about which couples sometimes agree and sometimes disagree. Indicate if either item below caused differences of opinions or were problems in your relationship during the past few weeks. (Circle YES or NO)
YES NO
0 1 Being too tired for sex.
0 1 Not showing love
The dots on the following line represent different degrees of happiness in your relationship. The middle point happy, represents the degree of happiness of most relationships. Please circle the dot which best describes the degree of happiness, all things considered, of your relationship.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
____. . . . . . .___
Extremely Fairly A little Happy Very Extremely Perfect
Unhappy Unhappy Unhappy Happy Happy
Which of the following statements best describes how you feel about the future of your relationship (Circle one)
5 I want desperately for my relationship to succeed, and would go to almost any length to see that itdoes.
4 I want very much for my relationship to succeed, and will do all I can to see that it does.
3 I want very much for my relationship to succeed, and will do my fair share to see that it does.
2 It would be nice if my relationship succeeded, but I cant do much more than I am doing now tohelp it succeed.
1 It would be nice if it succeeded, but I refuse to do any more than I am doing now to help itsucceed.
0 My relationship can never succeed, and there is no more that I can do to keep the relationshipgoing.

APPENDIX D COMMUNICATION PATTERNS QUESTIONNAIRE,SHORT FORM (CPQSF)
Directions We are interested in how you and your partner deal with problems in your relationship. Please rate each item on a scale of 1 ( very unlikely) to 9 ( very likely). Circle the appropriate number.
A. When some problem in the relationship arises Very
UnlikelyVery LikelyBoth you and your partner avoid discussing the problem.123456789Both you and your partner try to discuss the problem.1234567893. (a) You try to start a discussion while your partner tries to avoid a discussion.

(b) Your partner tries to start a discussion while you try to avoid a discussion.1
12
23
34
45
56
67
78
89
9B. During a discussion of a relationship problem4. Both you and your partner express your feelings to each other.123456789Both you and your partner blame, accuse, and criticize each other.123456789Both you and your partner suggest possible solutions and compromises.123456789(a) You pressure, nag, or demand while your partner withdraws, becomes silent, or refuses to discuss the matter further.

(b) Your partner pressures, nags, or demands while you withdraw, become silent, or refuse to discuss the matter further.1
12
23
34
45
56
67
78
89
9(a) You criticize while your partner defends himherself.123456789(b) Your partner criticizes while you try to defend yourself.123456789 Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS)By Sonja Lyubomirsky, Ph.D.For each of the following statements andor questions, please circle the point on the scale that you feelis most appropriate in describing you.1. In general, I consider myself1 2 3 4 5 6 7not a very a veryhappy happyperson person2. Compared to most of my peers, I consider myself1 2 3 4 5 6 7less morehappy happy3. Some people are generally very happy. They enjoy life regardless of what is going on, getting themost out of everything. To what extent does this characterization describe you1 2 3 4 5 6 7not at a greatall deal4. Some people are generally not very happy. Although they are not depressed, they never seem ashappy as they might be. To what extent does this characterization describe you1 2 3 4 5 6 7not at a greatall dealNote Item 4 is reverse coded.