New source

The subjective experience of partnership love:
A Q Methodological study
Simon Watts1* and Paul Stenner2
1
Nottingham Trent University, UK
2
University College London, UK
The social scientific literature seems increasingly to accept that defining partnership or
‘romantic’ love in a singular and timeless fashion might not be a realisable task (Fehr,
1988). One clearly discernible response to this situation takes the form of a turn
towards studying the subjective experience of partnership love. The work of Marston,
Hecht, Manke, McDaniel, and Reeder (1998) and Sternberg (1995, 1996, 1998) are
highlighted as theoretical and methodological exemplars in this regard. Each
successfully abstracts a range of cultural conceptions of partnership love from the
subjective experiences of their participants. It is argued, however, that the subjective
experiences of the participants themselves, and particularly the holistic or Gestalt
nature of those experiences, are left behind in the process of abstraction. This new
research seeks to rectify that situation. An alternative (but nonetheless related)
approach to the study of partnership love is duly outlined and an illustrative
Q-Methodological study is reported which reveals eight distinct subjective experiences
of partnership love at work amongst our participants (N
1⁄4 50). Each of these holistic
experiences is presented in the form of a narrative account. These accounts are then
discussed and situated in relation to existing academic, cultural and historical
conceptions of partnership love.
Introduction: The turn to subjective experience
The social scientific literature seems increasingly to accept that defining partnership or
‘romantic’ love in a singular and timeless fashion might not be a realisable task (Fehr,
1988). Beall and Sternberg (1995), for example, contemplate the manner in which
academic ‘definitions of romantic love always seem incomplete and dr y versions of an
often explosive experience’ (p. 417), while Beverley Fehr (1988) highlights the ‘conflict,
confusion, and disagreement’ (p. 557) which has dogged the search for a definitive
account of love. A large number of definitions have received empirical support, yet each
struggles to capture our actual experiences of love. It is possible to conclude, therefore, as
* Correspondence should be addressed to Dr Simon Watts, Psychology Division, School of Social Sciences, Nottingham Trent
University, Bur ton Street, Nottingham, NG1 4BU, UK (e-mail: simon.watts@ntu.ac .uk).
The
British
Psychological
Society
85
British Journal of Social Psychology (2005), 44, 85–107
q 2005 The British Psychological Society
www.bpsjournals.co.uk
DOI:10.1348/014466604X23473
do Sternberg and Grajek (1984), that despite love’s potential to reside ‘amongst the most
intense of human emotions: : :no one knows quite what it is’ (p. 312).
One clearly discernible response to this situation takes the form of a turn towards
studying the subjective experience of partnership love, and for employing such
experience as an ‘inductive basis for generating data and constructing theor y’ (Marston
et al., 1998, p. 19). John Alan Lee’s (1977, 1988) ‘love styles’ research was
groundbreaking in this regard. Lee (1977) assumes from the outset that love is an
essentially heterogeneous concept. We have failed to grasp love in the singular simply
because love is not like that. It needs instead to be approached as a problem of
competing ideologies, each offering an alternative view of intimate adult partnering.
Given this position, it is no surprise to find that Lee is critical of academic work
which questions or presumes to disallow certain types of love. Participants in an
academic study should feel able to express their views about love, even if those views
contradict the beliefs of the researcher and/or currently prevailing fashions. Lee used a
‘love stor y card sort’ to facilitate such expression. The sort contained approximately
1,500 cards, each offering a brief description of a love related event, idea or emotion.
Participants were simply encouraged to select those cards which most effectively
expressed the key elements of their own love stor y. In this way, the subjective
experiences of the participant group were allowed to drive both the data gathering
process and the production of theory, the latter being generated on an a posteriori basis
when the results of these sorting activities were subjected to factor analysis. The end-
product was Lee’s (by now familiar) typology of love styles: the three primar y styles,
eros, ludus, and storge, and the three secondary styles, mania, agape, and pragma.
Lee clearly indicates that these styles are not a function of individual personality
characteristics or traits. On the contrary, they represent specific ideologies and are, as
such, expressly social psychological phenomena. Each ideology is a collection of beliefs,
assumptions, and expectations that are shared by a group and which work together to
justify specific social arrangements and institutions. An individual person will simply
‘buy into’ one (or more) of these ideologies in particular contexts for and certain periods
of time. Several preferences can duly be expressed in a lifetime, or even simultaneously,
each combinator y ‘style’ being relevant to a different stage in a relationship’s
development or even to a different partner. The primar y styles of the group can hence
be combined to produce an almost infinite number of subjective experiences of love,
much as the three primar y colours can produce an almost infinite number of colour
effects within the human eye. For Lee (1988), it is ultimately ‘pointless: : :to attempt to
say how many love styles there are’ (p. 45).
Two more recent approaches which continue this interest in the subjective
experience of partnership love are the phenomenologically oriented ‘love ways’
research of Peter Marston, Michael Hecht, and others (Marston et al., 1998; Hecht,
Marston, & Larkey, 1994; Marston, Hecht, & Robers, 1987), and the ‘love stories’
approach of Robert Sternberg, which is influenced by the turn to narrative ushered in by
social constructionism (Sternberg, 1995, 1996, 1998). Like Lee, these approaches both
consider partnership love to possess a highly variegated nature. Marston et al. (1998),
for example, talk of an indefinite number of ways of expressing and experiencing
love, while Sternberg’s (1995, 1996) emphasis on narrative leads him to recognize a
potentially infinite number of workable love stories. They also share the belief that our
subjective experiences of partnership love are essentially holistic in nature. For the
phenomenologist, this implies that the perceptions of a given lover ‘coalesce to form
polyvalent holistic Gestalts’ (Hecht et al., 1994, p. 26). From a narrative perspective, it
Simon Watts and Paul Stenner86
implies that an individual’s many experiences of partnership love coalesce to form a
single ‘love stor y’ (LaRossa, 1995; McAdams, 1993; Sternberg, 1995, 1996).
These attempts to capture the holism of love certainly differ, but both concepts
are nonetheless understood to provide the individual with a coherent ‘point-of-view’
– what a long tradition of post-structuralist scholarship has called a ‘subject position’
(cf. Davies & Harre ́, 1990) – from which the world is encountered and experienced
(Curt, 1994). In Sternberg’s terminology, our current experiences of partnership love,
our partner, our relationships and so on, are considered (at least in part) to be a
function of our love stor y. It is probable, however, that new experiences will also
affect the constitution of our stor y in a reciprocal fashion. This opens the possibility
that our viewpoint or position may shift with time. Therefore, while a particular stor y
can certainly ‘cause us to behave in certain ways and even to elicit certain behaviours
from others: : :our own development and interactions: : :may [also] shape and
modify the stories we have and thus what we bring to our relationships’ (Sternberg,
1996, p. 70).
A final parallel between these approaches lies in their efforts to locate the
subjective experience of partnership love within the frame of an active and directive
cultural context. For Marston et al. (1998), this implies that our ‘subjective
experiences are undoubtedly influenced – but not determined – by cultural
conceptions’ (p. 19) (see also D’Andrade, 1984). For Sternberg, it suggests that our
‘cultural conceptions of love implicitly define what is appropriate’ (Beall & Sternberg,
1995, p. 426). This recognition is again highly reminiscent of Lee’s ideological view of
love. The empirical work of Sternberg and the ‘love ways’ researchers confirm this
similarity in the sense that they mirror Lee’s pursuit of a coherent taxonomy of
cultural conceptions of love.
Sternberg informally gathered over 100 love stories from groups of students.
Participants were then asked ‘to rate the extent to which each of a set of statements
based on each stor y characterizes themselves’ (Sternberg, 1995, p. 546). Factor
analysis of responses revealed distinct factors for particular stories (as opposed to
‘clusters of stories grouping together’), a finding which was verified by a card-sorting
task which confirmed that ‘people truly do sort according to the proposed taxonomy’
(1995, p. 546). Sternberg’s taxonomy currently includes 24 love stories, including love
as science (which promotes a rational approach to love), love as art (in which one
seeks a partner for their aesthetic qualities), and love as war (which understands the
love relationship in terms of a constant series of battles).
The ‘love ways’ researchers followed a similar path, employing a content analysis
of open-ended interviews designed to elicit ‘the respondent’s own experiential
definition of love’ (Marston et al., 1987, p. 393). The resultant categor y system was
then used to code the interviews and these codings were employed as the basis for a
final factor (or cluster) analysis. This procedure yielded a taxonomy of five different
‘ways’ of experiencing partnership love (reported in Hinde 1997, p. 493): intuitive
love (which emphasizes non-verbal expression and communication, physical contact,
and sexual acti vi ty); companionate l ove (whi ch emphasi zes toget her ness,
communication, support, and expressiveness); secure love (which prioritizes security
and need); traditional love (which is ver y much based on feelings and which stresses
both the warmth and anxiety that love can engender); and finally, committed love
(which seeks commitment and a clear plan of the future). These different ways of
loving represent particular ‘constellations of perceptions and behaviours that are
common in [the] subjective Gestalts of lovers’ (Hecht et al., 1994, p. 27).
The subjective experience of par tnership love 87
Research aims and methodology
The approaches we have mentioned in this opening section all prioritize the
subjective experience of partnership love. They also share much in common in terms
of both theor y and method. In each case, the researchers use the subjective
experiences of their participants as a ground from which they subsequently extract
and abstract (usually by means of factor analysis) a limited independent variety of
cultural conceptions of love. These conceptions are presented in the form of a
taxonomy. It is then acknowledged that these cultural conceptions might actually be
combined in a myriad of different ways within particular individuals to produce
a potentially infinite number of love experiences. The ‘love ways’ tradition, for
example, mirrors Lee’s assertions about his ‘love styles’ when they suggest that their
five basic ways of loving will be ‘combined in different ways in different individuals,
and yet in each individual: : :[they will produce] a holistic experience which is
recognized as being in love’ (Hinde, 1997, p. 433).
What these analyses leave behind in the process of abstraction, however, is the
subjective experience itself, and particularly the holistic nature of that experience. The
love ways, for example, represent some of the common elements present in the
subjective Gestalts of lovers, not the Gestalts themselves. The love styles give us the
primar y colours, but the many shades of love may still escape us. The love stories
demonstrate the common themes, but we can still ‘lose the plot’ in relation to particular
lovers, and so on. This is a situation we hope to remedy in the present paper. We shall do
so via a brief elaboration of an alternative (but nonetheless closely related) scheme for
studying the subjective experience of partnership love. This approach once again
employs a card-sorting task and factor analysis, but it does so in a manner which is more
sympathetic to the holistic nature of our love experiences. In using this technique, we
can see not only the common elements present in the subjective Gestalts of lovers, but
also the relationships and patterns that pertain between these elements and ultimately
the nature of the Gestalts themselves.
Q Methodology
Our alternative scheme makes use of William Stephenson’s (1953) ‘Q Methodology’
(Watts & Stenner, 2005). Q is primarily an explorator y technique and can hence be seen
as a precursor of the so-called ‘grounded theor y’ approach (Glazer and Strauss, 1968). It
was designed expressly to deal with subjective experience and social psychologists have
already employed it successfully in the context of a range of subject-matters that share
something of partnership love’s diverse character, including jealousy, rebelliousness,
childhood, and lesbian identity (Stenner & Stainton Rogers, 1998; Stenner & Marshall,
1995; Stainton Rogers & Stainton Rogers, 1992; Kitzinger & Stainton Rogers, 1985).
The procedure of Q Methodology is quite straightforward: participants are first
required to complete a card-sorting task and the results of that task are then subjected to
factor analysis. This should sound quite familiar in the context of the various approaches
described earlier. At both stages, however, Q Methodology is subtly different. The card-
sorting task differs insofar as it is carried out in line with Gestalt principles (Good, 2000),
such that its end-point for any participant lies in the holistic configuration or patterning of
all of the items in relation to each other. That configuration itself – the participants’
completed ‘Q sort’ – is the research target. A 60-item card-sorting task performed in this
way (of the type used in the current study) renders a very large number of such
configurations available to our participants (precise figures are presented in Brown,
Simon Watts and Paul Stenner88
1980). This is evidently important in the context of partnership love, given the potentially
infinite number of subjective experiences our method may encounter.
The factor analytic procedure of Q Methodology also emphasizes Gestalt principles.
It is different from conventional factor analyses (of the type carried out by Lee,
Marston, & Sternberg) insofar as it is the configurations themselves (entire ‘Q sorts’)
that are subsequently intercorrelated and factor analysed. The initial intercorrelation
matrix duly reflects the relationship of each Q sort with ever y other Q sort (a 50
£ 50
matrix in the case of the present study), rather than each item with every other item as
would ordinarily be the case. Another way of expressing this is that the factor analysis
is carried out on a by-person rather than a by-item basis (see Stephenson, 1936a,
1936b). Hence, it is the participants who load onto the emergent factors of a
Q Methodological study, their relationship to that factor being a function of the
manner in which they have configured the items during the card-sorting task. Two
participants loading significantly on the same factor can thus be understood to have
configured the items in a similar fashion.
The application of this procedure will allow us to reveal a set of suitably Gestalt
factors, each factor being represented, not by a characteristic subset of the original card-
sort items, but by all the original card-sort items configured in a characteristic way.
If, therefore, we design a card-sort task in which every item describes a different
element common to partnership love, our factors would not divide those elements (into
distinct subsets, ways or styles), but would instead show us how those elements (ways
or styles) were combined within the subjective experiences of our participating lovers.
The nature of these subjective Gestalts could then be revealed. The following study is
illustrative of such principles in action.
Method
Par ticipants
Fifty participants were recruited for the study on a voluntar y basis. These participants
were not required to have a partner at the time of the study, but experience of at least
one intimate love relationship was a prerequisite. The participant sample displayed the
following demographic characteristics:
Ages: Ranged from 18–59 years, with an average of 32.94 years.
Gender: Women (34 participants), Men (16).
Sexuality: Heterosexual (47), Homosexual (3).
Ethnicity: White British (36), Black British (4), Asian (5), Black Caribbean (2), White
European (1), Black African (1), Mixed Race (1).
Religion: None Stated (32), Christian (8), Catholic (4), Muslim (2), Sikh (1), Hindu (1),
Jewish (1), Protestant (1).
Marital status: Single (34), Married (11), Divorced (3), Separated (2).
Current relationship status: In Relationship (31), Not In Relationship (19).
Average length of 31 current relationships: 6.61 years.
Procedure
The researchers first compiled a set of 60 statements, each of the statements making a
different, but recognisable assertion about the nature of partnership love (see Table 1).
This process is not theory-driven as is customar y in the design of a questionnaire, but is
The subjective experience of par tnership love 89
instead carried out as a ‘sampling’ task. In the context of the present study, the aim was
to generate a set of statements that described many of the common elements of
partnership love (and which was hence broadly representative of the opinion domain at
issue). The final set of statements was elicited in a number of ways and from a number of
sources: by extensive reference to the academic literature, from both literar y and
popular texts (magazines, television programmes, etc.), and from the comments of
participants involved in a pilot study. The pilot study was employed as a means of
refining and adjusting the final statement set (a) in order to reduce duplication and
problematic expression; (b) to ensure that statements were presented in everyday
rather than technical terminology; and (c) to ensure the representativeness of the
statement set.
Participants were then asked to carr y out a card-sorting task using these 60
statements. Each statement was to be assigned a ranking position (relative to all the
others) in a fixed quasi-normal distribution, based upon the extent to which each
statement was felt to describe the participant’s overall experience of partnership love,
as that experience is currently perceived. Ranking values in the distribution ranged from
þ 6 for ‘most descriptive’, through 0, to –6 for ‘most undescriptive’ (see Fig. 1). The end
point of this process for each participant was a single and holistic configuration of the
statements (their completed Q sort). In this way, each participant’s subjective
experience of partnership love was registered in Gestalt form.
Participants were also asked to provide some brief supplementar y comments on:
(a) their interpretation of the meanings and implications of any statements which
were of major personal importance; (b) any further relevant statements they would
like to have seen included in the study; and (c) any statements that they had not
understood. Finally, participants wrote a short paragraph expressing their views about
partnership love.
Results
Statistical overview
The data for the 50 participants was statistically analysed using the dedicated Q package
PCQ (Stricklin, 1987). Eight factors emerged from the analysis (and were rotated using
the orthogonal varimax procedure), which explained 58% of the variance and accounted
for 40 of the 50 participants. Seven of the remaining 10 participants significantly loaded
on more than one of the presented factors. A single factor exemplifying or ‘characteristic’
Figure 1. The fixed quasi-normal distribution employed for this study. Figures in [brackets] indicate
the number of statements which could be allocated to each ranking position. The statement numbers
are configured to illustrate the ‘factor exemplifying’ Q sort for factor A.
Simon Watts and Paul Stenner90
Q sort was then generated for each of the factors. This is produced for each factor by
carr ying out a weighted averaging of all the participant Q sorts that load significantly on
that factor alone (for more details see, for example, Brown, 1980). A participant loading
of 0.40 reached significance at p , :01 in the current study. The statistical analyses are
duly complete when each factor is represented by its own characteristic Q sort, the
factors being distinguished by the different ways in which the 60 statements of the
original card-sorting task are configured within those sorts.
Presentational overview
The data from this study will be presented in two ways:
In quantitative form. Table 1 shows the ranking assigned to each of the 60
statements in each of the characteristic or ‘factor exemplifying’ Q sorts. Reading the
table by column reveals the configuration (or comparative ranking) of statements which
characterize a particular factor. For example, reading down column A, we can see that
factor A ranked statement 1 at 2 5 (i.e. this factor does not believe that love is the same
with different partners), statement 2 at 2 1, and so on. Reading this table by row reveals
the comparative ranking of a particular statement across factors. For example, reading
along row 1, we can see that statement 1 was ranked at 2 5 by factor A, at 2 1 by factor
B, and so on. The highest and lowest rankings assigned to each of the statements are
indicated.
Table 1. By-factor rankings of statements 1–60 inc. All statements include the prefix ‘Partnership love
is: : :’. Boxes indicate the highest ranking assigned to each statement. Underlined Bold Italics indicate
the lowest ranking.
Factors A B C D E F G H
01 Essentially the same, even with
different partners
2 5 2 1 2 2 2 4 2 5 2 3 2 2 2 5
02 The most profound of human
feelings
2 1 2 5 2 4
þ 6 þ 6 0 2 2 0
03 A pleasant ‘addiction’ to the
company of your partner þ
1 1 4 2 2 2 1 2 6
þ 1 2 2 2 2
04 A profound belief in the value and
goodness of your partner þ
3 2 4 0
þ 1 1 5 2 5 0 2 2
05 A strong respect for your partner
þ 4 1 3 1 6 1 3 þ 4 þ 5 þ 5 þ 5
06 Inevitably shaped in practice by
life’s other problems and goals
2 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 3 2 4 2 3
07 An opening up of new life
directions and opportunities
0 2 2 2 2 0 1 4 0 2 5 2 1
08 A feeling of excitement 0 1 5 2 1 2 3
þ 2 1 5 þ 1 þ 1
09 Displaying patience and tolerance
in the support of your partner þ
3 0 1 4
þ 2 þ 3 0 þ 1 þ 2
10 A bond that enhances personal
security þ
1 2 3 2 1 2 1 0
þ 2 þ 3 1 6
11 Given its greatest expression by
the commitment of marriage þ
1 2 6 2 6 2 5 2 4 2 1 2 3 2 1
12 An urge over which we have little
control
2 2 2 4 2 3 2 2
þ 1 þ 1 1 2 2 4
The subjective experience of par tnership love 91
Table 1. Continued
Factors A B C D E F G H
13 A possibility, even where
circumstances have chosen our
partner for us þ
1 0 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 2 4 2 1
14 Always a fulfilling experience 2 4 0 2 4 2 5 2 3 2 6 2 6 1 2
15 Shaped in each of us by our
cultural upbringing
2 2
þ 4 1 4 0 2 1 0 2 4 2 1
16 Encouraged by the social stigma of
‘being alone’
2 5 2 4 1 2 2 2 2 5 2 4 1 2 2 4
17 Essential to living a complete and
fulfilled life
2 3 2 2 2 6 1 2 2 3 2 4 2 3 2 2
18 Easiest to give when personal
needs are already satisfied
2 4
þ 2 þ 1 2 2 0 2 2 2 4 þ 3
19 Encouraging your partner at every
opportunity
1 2 2 1 0
þ 1 2 4 2 1 þ 1 0
20 An extension of everyday
friendship þ
1 2 1
þ 2 2 2 0 2 1 þ 4 þ 1
21 Asking as little from your partner
as is possible
2 3 2 5 2 4 2 6 2 1 2 6 2 5 2 6
22 An intense commitment to your
partner þ
3 2 1 0
þ 3 2 3 þ 4 þ 4 þ 4
23 An intrinsic emotional need to
feel that one is of value
2 2
þ 1 2 1 0 0 2 2 þ 2 þ 1
24 Enhancing to the physical sexual
experience
2 2 1 5 2 1
þ 3 2 2 þ 1 2 2 þ 4
25 A desire to assist your partner in
achieving their full potential
1 4
þ 1 þ 1 þ 2 0 0 0 þ 1
26 The sharing of interests and
activities
1 2 2 2 1 2 0 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 3
27 More difficult to ‘get right’ than is
generally admitted
0 2 3
þ 4 þ 2 1 6 þ 5 þ 1 2 3
28 Being flexible and open to
compromise þ
4
þ 2 1 5 þ 4 þ 3 0 0 þ 2
29 Attempting to always understand 1 6
þ 1 þ 2 þ 4 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1
30 A fundamental need for close
attachment
2 1
þ 2 2 1 þ 1 1 4 þ 1 þ 2 0
31 Made easier if both partners have
clearly pre-defined roles
2 5 2 2 2 2 2 5 2 4 1 2 2 3 0
32 Rooted in physical attraction 2 2 1 6 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 6 2 3 2 2
33 Unquestioningly accepting your
partner for the person
that they are þ
4 0
þ 1 2 3 þ 1 2 4 1 6 2 3
34 The pursuit of personal pleasure
and happiness
0
þ 5 2 3 2 4 1 3 þ 3 2 1 þ 1
35 Feeling that you can comfortably
depend on your partner þ
2 0
þ 1 0 2 3 þ 2 1 3 1 3
36 The moulding of two persons into
a single functional unit
2 1 2 6 2 5 2 4
þ 2 0 2 5 1 3
Simon Watts and Paul Stenner92
Table 1. Continued
Factors A B C D E F G H
37 Equally the responsibility of both
partners þ
3
þ 3 1 5 1 5 1 2 þ 3 1 5 1 5
38 Soothing to feelings of personal
vulnerability
2 1 2 2 0 2 2 2 1 2 3 2 1 0
39 Initially so intense that it is difficult
to discern and maintain ones own
perspective
2 4 2 1 2 3 2 3 2 1 1 6
þ 4 2 5
40 Built on open and effective
communication þ
5 1 1
þ 6 þ 4 þ 3 þ 2 1 6 þ 5
41 Continually damaging to rational
thought processes
2 6 2 4 2 4 2 3 2 4 1 4 2 1 2 6
42 Willingly accepting a degree of
responsibility for the well-being of
your partner þ
2
þ 2 þ 2 1 3 þ 1 1 3 0 0
43 Something that primarily occurs
‘between’ rather than ‘within’
persons
2 3 0 0 1 1 2 1 2 5 2 1 2 2
44 Better communicated by practical
action than by words
2 6
þ 2 1 3 þ 1 2 2 2 2 þ 3 0
45 Beneficial to ones personal self
esteem
2 1 1 4 2 2 0
þ 1 2 2 0 þ 2
46 An ongoing process 0 1 4
þ 4 1 5 þ 4 þ 2 þ 5 þ 3
47 A complete and shared honesty 1 6 2 1
þ 3 þ 2 þ 5 2 4 þ 3 1 6
48 A desire for intimate contact 2 1 1 6 2 2 0
þ 2 þ 3 þ 2 þ 1
49 A conscious decision to prioritize
your partner’s interests
0 2 3 2 3 2 4 2 6 2 2 2 3 2 4
50 A mutual support relationship 1 5
þ 3 þ 3 þ 4 þ 2 þ 4 þ 4 þ 4
51 Being prepared to sacrifice any
necessary personal freedoms
1 1 2 3 2 5 2 6
þ 1 2 5 2 6 2 5
52 The sharing of problems 1 5 0
þ 3 þ 3 0 0 0 þ 3
53 Potentially demanding of personal
time and resources
2 3
þ 3 þ 2 2 1 2 5 1 4 2 2 2 2
54 Made increasingly difficult by the
demands of our modern lifestyle
2 4 2 5 1 1 0 0 2 1
þ 1 2 4
55 Often given in the hope that love
will be returned
0 2 2 0 2 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 2
56 Likely to improve as we mature
and gain wisdom
0
þ 1 0 2 1 1 5 þ 3 0 2 1
57 To desire the best for your
partner, regardless of
the sacrifices this may entail
1 3
þ 2 2 3 2 3 þ 1 2 3 2 1 2 3
58 Allowing your partner the room
to fully express themselves þ
2 1 3 1 3
þ 2 þ 2 2 3 1 3 0
59 Treating your partner as you
would wish to be treated yourself þ
2 0
þ 5 1 6 þ 3 þ 1 2 2 þ 4
60 The ultimate way-of-relating to
another person
2 3 2 3 2 5 1 5 2 2 2 1
þ 1 þ 2
The subjective experience of par tnership love 93
In qualitative (or storied) form. Table 1 illustrates the various configurations of
statements which characterize the different factors. It shows us how these factors have
combined our sample of common elements of partnership love. In addition, however,
we can present a narrative account (Harvey, Agostinelli, & Weber 1989; Antaki 1987) of
each factor, which treats these configurations as Gestalt entities and which allows us to
communicate something of the nature of each Gestalt. These accounts are presented in
everyday language and have been constructed by careful reference to the relative
rankings and overall configuration of the statements in each factor exemplifying Q sort.
The rankings which inform the construction of the account at any particular point are
included in the text: (30:
þ 4) for example, indicates that statement 30 was ranked in
the
þ 4 position and that this ranking is currently pertinent to the account being offered.
This process is further guided (and the accounts are also embellished) by the comments
of participants whose individual Q sorts have loaded significantly on the relevant factor.
Where possible, the narrative account for each factor has been shown to these loading
participants for confirmation of its representativeness (this was possible for all factors
except E). Of course, such processes of construction and interpretation are in principle
never-ending; there are always different shades of meaning and emphases that could be
drawn out. It should be recognized, however, that the narrative accounts presented here
are necessarily constrained by, and can readily be checked against, the subjective input
of participants, since that input is reflected and frozen in the objective structure of
each of the factor exemplifying Q sorts. Yet alternative readings remain possible
(indeed, we would welcome them). We are nevertheless confident, particularly in light
of the confirmation of loading participants, that the following accounts capture much of
the substance of the relevant factors.
Narrative accounts (by-factor)
Factor A
Note. Factor A is a ‘bipolar’ factor. This means that two ‘opposed’ viewpoints are being
expressed by the participants who load on this factor, each viewpoint having a factor
exemplifying Q sort that is the ‘mirror-image’ of the other. What the positive version of
the factor (Factor A
þ ) sees as vital to its position therefore – ‘understanding a partner’
(29:
þ 6) for example – the negative version of the factor (Factor A 2 ) rejects out of
hand (29: 2 6), and vice versa. Hence, it is necessar y to present two narrative accounts
for factor A.
Demographic summary. Factor A explains 11% of the study variance and has an
eigenvalue of 5.64. Eleven participants load significantly (nine on Factor A
þ , two
on Factor A 2 ). Eight of them are women, three are men (six women and three men on
Factor A
þ , two women on Factor A 2 ). Six of them are White British, three are Asian
(two are Indian by descent – one is Muslim, one is Hindu – the other is Chinese), one is
Black British, and one is White European (Greek). The Black British and White European
participants load on Factor A 2 . Ages range from 18–56, with a mean average of 27.82
years. Seven of these participants were in relationships at the time of the study, four
were not. The mean average length of the seven current relationships was 10.57 years.
Factor A
þ : Mutual trust, recognition and suppor t
Interpretation. Love for Factor A
þ is a continual shared effort of mutual recognition and
understanding. Hence the lover must always attempt to understand the loved (29:
þ 6),
desiring also to assist them in maximizing their potential as an individual (25:
þ 4). This
effort must be equally the responsibility of both partners (37:
þ 3). A profound belief in
Simon Watts and Paul Stenner94
the value and goodness of the partner, and a strong respect for them, are necessar y
conditions of love (04:
þ 3, 05: þ 4). Partners must also be unquestioningly accepted as
they are (33:
þ 4). This requires great patience and tolerance (09: þ 3), but results in a
mutually supportive relationship wherein each partner can comfortably depend on the
other (50:
þ 5, 35: þ 2). Problems can be shared (52: þ 5) as well as more pleasant
interests and activities (26:
þ 2). Despite this close and supportive partnership, the lover
must allow the loved to have room to fully express themselves (58:
þ 2), and both must
always be flexible and open to compromise (28:
þ 4). Lovers are expected, therefore, to
demand a great deal from one another (21: 2 3). One cannot expect the process of love
always to be a fulfilling experience (14: 2 4), given that it requires an intense
commitment to desire the best for the lover regardless of possible personal sacrifices
(22:
þ 3, 57: þ 3). This kind of love must be clearly differentiated from the kind of
temporar y, uncommitted and pleasure oriented feeling often called by the same name
(32: 2 2, 34: 0, 39: 2 4, 41: 2 6, 12: 2 2). Factor A
þ love must not be romanticized as
some deeply profound and ultimate way-of-relating essential to personal fulfilment
(60: 2 3, 02: 2 1, 17: 2 3). Rather, love is more mundane and effortful: a strong mutual
commitment which demands complete honesty (47:
þ 6) and a high level of open and
effective communication (40:
þ 5, 44: 2 6).
Factor A 2 : Cupid’s arrow
Interpretation. Factor A 2 represents a direct reversal of the configuration of
statements that was characteristic of A
þ . In short, love is a benign irrational force that
is essentially the same, regardless of specific partners (41:
þ 6, 01: þ 5). It is expressed
through actions more than through words (44:
þ 6), since it has nothing to do with
honesty or open and effective communication (40: 2 5, 47: 2 6). Neither does it involve
mutual respect (05: 2 5, 04: 2 3) or support (50: 2 5, 25: 2 4, 33: 2 4, 09: 2 3), for love
is a passion so intense that one loses sight of who one is and what one needs (39:
þ 4).
The strike of this passion is encouraged by the social stigma of being alone (16:
þ 5).
It has nothing to do with comfort, responsibility, or the solving of problems (52: 2 5,
37: 2 3, 35: 2 2), since it blasts through such mundane matters with single-minded zeal
(29: 2 6, 28:
þ 4). Although love may be a fixated and inflexible passion, it is
nevertheless the ultimate way of relating to another person (60:
þ 3). It is to some extent
rooted in physical attraction (32:
þ 2), but is not merely to do with the pursuit of
personal pleasure or happiness (34: 0). In fact, it is something that exists between rather
than within people (43:
þ 3). Love, far from being dependable and reliable, is an urge
over which we have little control (12:
þ 2). It can be made easier by operating according
to pre-defined roles (31:
þ 5), but still tends to be ver y demanding of personal time and
resources (53:
þ 3). Hence love is easier to give when one’s own needs and
requirements have already been met (18:
þ 4), and the giving is made still more difficult
by the demands of our modern lifestyle (54:
þ 4). This is a pity since love is always a
fulfilling experience and is essential to living a complete life (14:
þ 4, 17: þ 3).
Factor B: Hedonistic love
Demographic summary. Factor B explains 7% of the study variance and has an
eigenvalue of 3.50. Four participants load significantly on this factor. Three are women,
one a man. Three are White British, one is White European (an Austrian). Ages range
from 32–46, with a mean average of 37.25 years. Three of these participants were in
relationships at the time of the study, 1 was not. The mean average length of the three
current relationships was 2.95 years.
The subjective experience of par tnership love 95
Interpretation. Far from being the most profound of human feelings (02: 2 5), Factor
B love is the pursuit of personal pleasure and happiness and is unequivocally rooted in
physical attraction (34:
þ 5, 32: þ 6). It is effectively a pleasantly addictive ‘feeling of
excitement’ (08:
þ 5, 03: þ 4) which has the added hedonistic benefit of enhancing
one’s self esteem (45:
þ 4). Love is thus defined in terms of a desire for intimate contact
(48:
þ 6) and is seen to enhance the physical, sexual experience (24: þ 5). Modern
conditions of living make it easier to engage in this kind of loving (54: 2 5). As it is
rooted in feelings of excitement and pleasure, it is no surprise that Factor B love does not
involve the sacrificing of personal freedoms or the prioritizing of the loved one’s
interests (51: 2 3, 49: 2 3). Nevertheless, the pursuit of love can be demanding of time
and resources (53:
þ 3). Love is certainly not associated with long-term commitment,
and this factor does not accept that its ultimate expression is found in marriage (11: 2 6),
or in the ‘moulding’ of two persons into a single unit (36: 2 6, 58:
þ 3). As elaborated by
Participant 9, love cannot be ‘a commitment’ since it ‘is natural and lasts until the
emotion is no longer there’ Concern with coming to know, understand, and support a
partner is limited (40:
þ 1, 29: þ 1, 09: 0, 52: 0). This love does not involve a belief in the
value and goodness of a loved one (04: 2 4; indeed Participant 2 goes as far as to say that
his partners are ‘usually a bitch’). Therefore love is by no means the ultimate way of
relating to another person (60: 2 3), and neither is it necessarily fulfilling (14: 0). Finally,
love is not an urge over which we have little control (12: 2 4) and, being related to self-
interest, is by no means irrational (41: 2 4).
Factor C: Demytholigized love
Demographic summary. Factor C explains 10% of the study variance and has an
eigenvalue of 4.84. It has five significantly loading participants. Three are women, two
are men. Three are White British, one is Black British, and one a Black African. Ages
range from 22–52, with a mean average of 35.20 years. Three of these participants were
in relationships at the time of the study, two were not. The mean average length of the
three current relationships was 9.50 years.
Interpretation. The chief characteristic of Factor C is its critical stance towards what is
seen as ‘the romantic myth of love’ (a comment from Participant 27). This socially
promulgated myth (which Participant 27 calls the ‘dominant construction’ of our society)
leads people to have unrealistically high expectations about love (15:
þ 4). The myth tells
us that love is the most profound of human feelings, that it is essential to living a complete
and fulfilled life, and that it is the ‘ultimate’ way of relating to another person. None of this
is true (02: 2 4, 17: 2 6, 60: 2 5). Another false aspect of the myth is that love is a powerful
and mysterious force that ‘sweeps us away’ (Participant 35) and over which we have little
rational control (39: 2 3, 41: 2 4, 12: 2 3). The ideal culmination of this myth is the joining
of two individuals as one, preferably via the institution of marriage, and this ideal is
strongly resisted by Factor C (11: 2 6, 36: 2 5). For Participant 35 ‘marriage may or may
not indicate concern and commitment’. In actuality, love is far more difficult, messy, and
problematic than the myth allows (27:
þ 4). Indeed, for Factor C, actual experiences of
partnership love can be far from fulfilling (14: 2 4, 34: 2 3, 45: 2 2). Participant 4, having
‘been single so many times’ states that compared to love, ‘other aspects of life can be so
fulfilling’. Refusing to be guided by the myth, Factor C finds that love is an extension of
everyday friendship (20:
þ 2, 26: þ 2), which requires high levels of mutual respect
(05:
þ 6, 59: þ 5, 37: þ 5). Also, as partners cannot rely upon a shared myth of love to unite
them, they must be able to communicate openly and effectively (40:
þ 6), and be able to
Simon Watts and Paul Stenner96
demonstrate their ‘love’ in a tangible, practical way (44:
þ 3, 26: þ 2). Difficult though this
may be (16:
þ 2, 10: 2 1), love should not offer the false security of a guaranteed intense
commitment (19: 0, 22: 0) and should not involve the sacrificing of one’s individuality in
the name of the ‘couple’ (51: 2 5, 57: 2 3, 49: 2 3). Rather, lovers must be patient,
tolerant, and able to compromise (28:
þ 5, 09: þ 4) and must be prepared to accept
‘continuous negotiation and change’ (Participant 35).
Factor D: Love as ultimate connection and profound feeling
Demographic summary. Factor D explains 9% of the study variance and has an
eigenvalue of 4.60. This factor has seven significantly loading participants. Five are
women, two are men. Six are White British and one is Black British. Ages range from
30–55, with a mean average of 43.43 years. Four of these participants were in
relationships at the time of the study, three were not. The mean average length of the
four current relationships was 2.13 years.
Interpretation. For Factor D, love is the most profound of human feelings and the
ultimate way of relating to another person (02:
þ 6, 60: þ 5). It is essential for the living
of a complete and fulfilled life (17:
þ 2). As put by Participant 3: ‘other life experiences
are only secondar y to love’. Participant 6 adds ‘love [is] essential: : :if you feel love for
someone then you experience the best feeling there is in the world: : :[a feeling] of
warmth: : :of being alive, contented’. But love is not just a pleasant internal feeling and
does not involve the pursuit of personal pleasure and happiness (34: 2 4, 08: 2 3). It is
something that exists between, rather than within, people (43:
þ 1*), the feelings and
the relationship are ‘inextricably linked aspects of the love experience’ (Participant 1).
As a phenomenon between people, partnership love is ver y much the responsibility of
both partners (37:
þ 5), and although it has the potential to be the most profound of
shared experiences, it can often, if the conditions are wrong, be unfulfilling (14: 2 5).
Love is distinct from mere friendship (20: 2 2) since it involves an ongoing and intense
commitment to the loved one (46:
þ 5, 22: þ 3), wherein one willingly accepts a degree
of responsibility for the other’s well-being (42:
þ 3). For love to ‘work’ reciprocity of
feelings, actions, commitment, and responsibility are essential (59:
þ 6, 50: þ 4, 52: þ 3).
To lack such reciprocity is indeed to threaten the fulfilment of love’s promise: ‘in the
past my love for another has often tended to be: : :too one-sided: : :[now] being
“treated as well” as I would treat my love is ver y important’ (Participant 6). One-sided
love, based on the personal sacrifices of just one of the lovers, are to be avoided (51: 2 6,
57: 2 3, 21: 2 6), and Factor D stresses that love should not ‘entail the subjugation of
self ’ (Participant 3). Love should involve neither the prioritizing of one’s partner’s
interests (49: 2 4), nor of one’s own (34: 2 4). Rather, for love to be the profound and
ultimate experience it can be, both partners must contribute and benefit: ‘love should
take as well as give’ (Participant 3).
*Note. Although
þ 1 is by no means a high ranking position, this is the highest
ranking given to this statement by any of the factors (excluding the negative pole of
factor 1A). While this statement might not be vital to the account expressed here, its
relative importance nonetheless makes it worthy of mention.
Factor E: Love as transformative adventure
Demographic summary. Factor E explains 5% of the study variance and has an
eigenvalue of 2.27. Factor E has three significantly loading participants. Two are women,
one is a man. Two are White British and one is Asian (an Indian Muslim). They are aged
18, 20, and 26, such that their mean average age is 21.33 years. One of these participants
The subjective experience of par tnership love 97
was in a relationship at the time of the study, the remaining two were not. The one
current relationship had been in progress for 2.50 years.
Interpretation. Although love is considered by Factor E to be the most profound of
human feelings (02:
þ 6), its profundity is not seen to consist in an enhanced way-of-
relating to another person (60: 2 2). In fact, statements which suggest mundane and
cognitive aspects of love, such as the ‘sharing of interests and activities’, or ‘attempting
always to understand’, are rejected (29: 2 2, 26: 2 2). Nor, to continue the negative
theme, is love about encouraging one’s partner (19: 2 4) or helping them to achieve their
potential (25: 0). It is certainly not based on a conscious decision to prioritize the loved
one’s interests (49: 2 6). Love is not merely an extension of friendship (20: 0), it is not
something that can be comfortably depended upon (35: 2 4), and it does not involve an
intense commitment to one’s partner (25: 2 3). In short, rather than being directed
towards establishing a comfortable and secure commitment, or being based upon
a concern to mutually enhance each other’s well-being, Factor E love involves the
excitement of opening oneself to new opportunities and life directions (07:
þ 4, 08: þ 2).
Such love is a risky business that is more difficult to get right than is generally admitted
(27:
þ 6) and it duly requires good communication and complete mutual honesty
(47:
þ 5, 40: þ 3). Far from being a cosy mutual support system, love is a fundamental
need for close attachment (39:
þ 4) which must ‘be felt deeply: : : as a genuine need’
(Participant 24). Lovers must be flexible enough to embrace the self-transformations
that an openness to this genuine need can bring (28:
þ 3, 58: þ 2), because the roller
coaster ride is necessarily unpredictable: indeed, ‘you can’t predict or control whether
you are going to ask a lot or not’ (Participant 32). Such an unpredictable experience
does, however, require one to respect and to believe in the value and goodness of a
loved one (05:
þ 4, 04: þ 5). In a sense, once on the ‘ride’, lovers become a single unit
undergoing unpredictable transformations together (36:
þ 2, 31: 2 4). In no sense, then,
could the experience be the same with different partners (01: 2 5) and in no way can it
be compared to a pleasant ‘addiction’ to the company of another (03: 2 6). The ‘ride’
can generate happiness and pleasure, but it can just as easily go wrong and be
unfulfilling (34:
þ 3, 14: 2 3).
Factor F: From Cupid’s arrow to role-bound relationship
Demographic summary. Factor F explains 4% of the study variance and has an
eigenvalue of 2.00. This factor has two significantly loading participants. One is a
women aged 30, the other a man of 59 years. They have a mean average age of
44.50 years. One is White British, the other a White European (half Spanish, half
English). The man was in a relationship (of 36 years duration) at the time of the
study, the woman was not.
Interpretation. Love for Factor F strikes with all the intensity of Cupid’s irrational
force (39:
þ 6) and continues to affect rational function across time (41: þ 4). Love
impacts ‘within’ the individual (43: 2 5) and is precipitated by physical attraction, a
desire for intimate contact, and the personal excitement and pleasure that these
passions produce (32:
þ 6, 48: þ 3, 08: þ 5, 34: þ 3). Love relationships, however, are
not considered so pleasurable – they place excessive demands on personal time and
resources, require much effort and commitment, yet are still difficult to ‘get right’
(53:
þ 4, 22: þ 4, 27: þ 5). Participant 26 even feels that the sharing of a ‘nasty
experience’, rather than the sharing of love, is the more effective way of ‘creating a
bond’. The relational aspect of love is not always a fulfilling experience (14: 2 6), nor
is it essential to living a complete life (17: 2 4). The idea of sacrificing personal
Simon Watts and Paul Stenner98
freedoms and pleasures to the relationship, or in the service of a partner, is strongly
resisted (51: 2 5, 57: 2 3). A love relationship will require us to accept responsibility
for a partner (42:
þ 3), and also to accept the strictures and demands of a pre-defined
‘role’ (31:
þ 2). Satisfying these responsibilities will allow little freedom of personal
expression (21: 2 6, 58: 2 3). Hence, the decision to engage in such a relationship is
not taken lightly and is indicative of a strong respect for a partner (05:
þ 5) –
something without which Participant 26 does ‘not believe love can survive’ – rather
than some romantic belief in a partner’s value and goodness (04: 2 5). Indeed, Factor
F love remains little concerned with understanding a partner (29: 2 2). It does not
really want to promote a partner’s personal growth or to share their problems, it
displays only minimal patience and tolerance and is, as such, comparatively inflexible
and uncompromising (25: 0, 52: 0, 09: 0, 28: 0*). Neither does it wish to further
compromise personal freedoms through needless displays of honesty (47: 2 4). In the
end, Participant 26 has ‘no idea’ what two people becoming a single functional unit
might actually ‘mean in practice’.
*Note. No factor ranks these statements lower than factor 1F. While then, these
comparatively ‘neutral’ rankings might seem unimportant, a defining feature of the
viewpoint expressed is its relative indifference toward these ideas.
Factor G: From Cupid’s arrow to friendship
Demographic summary. Factor G explains 5% of the study variance and has an
eigenvalue of 2.33. It has two significantly loading participants. Both are White British
women aged 21 and 26. They have a mean average age of 23.50 years. One of these
participants was in a relationship at the time of the study (of 1 year duration), the other
was not.
Interpretation. As always with Cupid’s arrow, love is initially intense enough to
disturb a person’s rational functions and sense of control (39:
þ 4, 12: þ 2). Here,
however, that intensity diminishes markedly as the process of love advances (41: 2 1,
46:
þ 5). At the culmination of this process, love is presented as the natural extension of
more ‘everyday’ friendships (20:
þ 4). It is logical, therefore, that love (like friendship)
will require an appropriate or ‘chosen’ person. It cannot happen with just anyone
(13: 2 4). Respect and the unconditional acceptance of a partner are necessar y
preconditions for love (05:
þ 5, 33: þ 6). As Participant 21 confirms, without
‘respect: : :people could not be in love’. Such a love favours mutual support and mutual
responsibility, both of which are best communicated by practical action (50:
þ 4, 37:
þ 5, 22: þ 4, 44: þ 3, 21: 2 5). This may, however, involve more than treating a partner as
you would wish to be treated yourself (59: 2 2). Communication must thus be open and
effective (40:
þ 6). Love will then satisfy several needs: an emotional need to feel of
value, a need for close attachment, and a desire for intimate – affectionate, rather than
overtly sexual 2 contact (23:
þ 2, 30: þ 2, 48: þ 2; 32: 2 3, 24: 2 2). Yet it is by no
means a guaranteed fulfilling experience (14: 2 6). Love cannot be expected to
provide increased opportunity and it may not help to improve a partner’s life (07: 2 5,
25: 0). In satisfying several needs, however, the love relationship should bring greater
personal security (10:
þ 3, 35: þ 3). (Outside influences will neither penetrate nor
affect such a secure relationship (06: 2 4, 15: 2 4).
Factor H: Dyadic-par tnership love
Demographic summary. Factor H explains 7% of the study variance and has an
eigenvalue of 3.51. Factor H has six significantly loading participants. Four are women,
The subjective experience of par tnership love 99
two are men. Three are White British, one is Black Caribbean, one is Asian (an Indian
Sikh), and one has mixed race. Ages range from 21 to 34, with a mean average of 30.34
years. Four of these participants were in relationships at the time of the study, two were
not. The mean average length of the four current relationships was 5.50 years.
Interpretation. Love for factor H is a fully integrated ‘partnership’, the merging of
two people into a single functional unit (36:
þ 3). This does not, however, involve the
unmitigated sacrifice of personal freedoms nor an irrational loss of control (51: 2 5,
57: 2 3, 41: 2 6, 39: 2 5, 03: 2 2). Participant 34 feels that sacrifice ‘sounds more like
subordination than love’. Love instead involves a rational decision to prioritize the
‘mutually supportive’ nature of the love relationship (12: 2 4, 50:
þ 4, 49: 2 4). Indeed,
this decision is made easier when some personal needs are already being satisfied
(22:
þ 4, 18: þ 3). Equality and reciprocity are thus fundamental (37: þ 5, 59: þ 4) with
much being asked of both partners (21: 2 6, 35:
þ 3). Since love evidently ‘develops in
response to another’ (Participant 34) it is necessarily ver y different with different
partners (01: 2 5). It is always important, however, that a partner can be respected
(05:
þ 5). Honesty and effective communication are essential (47: þ 6, 40: þ 5), the
primar y function of the dyad being to enhance the security of the individuals involved
(10:
þ 6). Hence, the sharing of problems is markedly more important than the sharing
of interests or activities (52:
þ 3; 26: 2 3). This type of partnership love works very
effectively (27: 2 3, 14:
þ 2) and it should continue to improve, for it ‘is always evolving
and developing and becomes deeper as the relationship develops’ (Participant 34).
The sexual experience will also be enhanced by this deepening bond (24:
þ 4). For
factor H, then, love is simply ‘the most significant and paramount way of connecting
with another person’ (Participant 34, 60:
þ 2).
Discussion
In this study we hope to have demonstrated the efficacy of Q Methodology as a means of
capturing the subjective experience of partnership love. It is a method which is
sympathetic to the holistic or Gestalt nature of our love experiences. Eight distinct
subjective Gestalts have emerged from our analyses and have been explicated in the
form of a narrative account. In so doing, we have begun to show that each Gestalt
represents a distinct subjective experience of partnership love – a distinct location from
which partnership love can be encountered and experienced. Love itself, of course, in
as much as we can talk of such a thing, remains as more than the sum of these locations.
In the introduction we talked of love’s infinite potential. In the study that followed, we
found 10 of our 50 participants configured the card-sort statements in a manner that
failed to load significantly on any of the eight reported factors. This finding reaffirms the
abundant potential of partnership love and should serve to remind us that a plethora of
other subjective experiences surely exist. The source, as it were, has not run dr y.
Our aim, however, was never to exhaustively chart all possibilities. This would have
been unrealistic given the rich diversity which seems to exemplify our subjective
experiences of partnership love. The extent of the commonality present in the data is
nonetheless worthy of note. The reported card-sorting task rendered a hyper-
astronomical number of possible statement configurations available to our participants.
A complete lack of consensus might have prevailed. Yet the commonality of the
configurations produced by our participants is actually quite striking. As many as 11 of
50 participants, for example, patterned the statements in a manner that was
characteristic of factor A. Given the number of options open to our participants, such
Simon Watts and Paul Stenner100
allegiance to a single shared configuration is unlikely to be an artefact of the investigative
procedure, nor is it the result of mere chance events (at p , :01). It also seems unlikely
that such a consensus was spontaneously produced by our participants at the moment
of investigation.
One possible solution to this problem lies in a reaffirmation of the notion that our
subjective experiences of partnership love are strongly influenced by cultural
conceptions. We suggested earlier that such conceptions serve to prescribe the
common experiential elements that characterize partnership love in a particular culture.
Perhaps they also tell us how these elements might be combined in a culturally
appropriate fashion? This sort of argument, which is characteristic of social
constructionism (see Beall & Sternberg, 1995), implies that our personal experiences
and accounts of love are thoroughly interwoven with stor y-telling and stor y-receiving
practices taking place within our culture (Curt, 1994). If this is correct, the currently
predominant conceptions or ‘stories’ of partnership love (at work in a particular
culture, subculture or historical period) may well serve to delimit the range of
subjective experiences that can acceptably be experienced in love’s name. That would
dramatically reduce the infinite potential of love. In a practical sense, such delimitation
ought to ensure that similar experiences (and hence similar configurations of
statements) emerge from further Q Methodological studies of the type reported. This is a
principle that can easily be tested.
With this in mind, the authors have already conducted two further studies using an
identical card-sorting task (and identical statements) to that employed in the current
paper. The first used a participant group (N
1⁄4 49) which contained a significantly
increased number of participants describing themselves as Asian (49% vs. 5% in the
reported study) and a significantly decreased number (39% down from 68%)
describing themselves as White British (see Watts, 2002). As a consequence, different
cultural influences may well have impacted within this study (indeed, the authors
hoped to pursue some new Gestalts in this fashion). Even here, however, several
commonalities emerged, the most notable of which was a factor whose factor
exemplifying Q sort shared a correlation coefficient of 0.68 (p , :01) with that of
Factor A
þ in the reported study. The second additional study returned to a
predominantly White British participant group (N
1⁄4 46) and produced a first factor
with an exemplifying Q sort that correlates even more highly with the exemplifying
sort of Factor A
þ (0.78, p , :01). Although this data has not yet been fully
interpreted, it is apparent that this new factor also shares the bipolar character of
Factor A. Indeed, strong family resemblances seem to hold between all the factors
(22 in total) that emerged across the three studies, an observation which has been
confirmed by means of a second-order factor analysis (which intercorrelated and factor
analysed the factor exemplifying Q sorts of all 22 factors). This analysis showed that 20
of the 22 factors load significantly onto just 6 super-factors (which together explained
59% of the study variance). It also demonstrated that the two new factors mentioned
above indeed load onto the same ‘super-factor’ as Factor A of the reported study.
In addition, two similar studies have been carried out using identical card-sorting
tasks, but different card-sorting stimuli (Watts, 2002). The first study employed single
word stimuli (companionship, happiness, honesty, trust, and so on) to represent the
common elements of partnership love. The participant group in this study were all
women (N
1⁄4 59). The second employed a set of statements taken from Robert
Sternberg’s (1997) Triangular love scale, with a mixed group of 52 participants.
Quantitative comparisons are obviously precluded in these cases, but qualitative
The subjective experience of par tnership love 101
similarities between the emergent factors and the factors reported here are again quite
marked. Indeed, the first factors of both these studies present an account of partnership
love which is ver y similar to that offered by Factor A
þ .
Another way to confirm the presence of a distinct cultural influence within our data
is to compare the narrative accounts produced by our participants with pre-existent
accounts of partnership love (whether those accounts are academic or popular, modern
or historical). It is immediately noticeable, for example, that the diametrically opposed
experiences captured in the bipolarity of Factor A (and reported as Factor A
þ and
A 2 ) cor respond neat ly wi t h Hat fiel d and Wal st er’s ( 1978) di st i nct i on
between ‘companionate’ and ‘passionate’ love. The former is characterized by a
friendly affection and deep attachment made possible by respect, admiration, and trust,
and the latter is ‘a wildly emotional state, a confusion of feelings: tenderness and
sexuality, elation and pain, anxiety and relief, altruism and jealousy’. In our study, we see
clearly how this distinction is subjectively experienced. The Factor A
þ position
(mutual trust, recognition and support) starkly differentiates itself from what is
perceived as the temporary, uncommitted and pleasure-oriented nature of ‘passionate
love’. That which is seen from the passionate perspective of Factor A 2 as the very
essence of partnership love, is seen from the perspective of Factor A
þ as a dangerous
irresponsibility which is antithetical to the true love of respect, support, and
commitment.
Similarly contrasting accounts of partnership love are discernible within the
historical record. These are often linked to philosophical arguments which distinguish
the ‘mundane’ qualities of love from its ‘magical’ or ‘transcendent’ qualities. Plato’s
Phaedrus (1995), for example, draws a line between the apparently unenlightened and
mundane view of love epitomized in Lysias’ speech, and the divinely inspired madness
celebrated in Socrates’ second speech. Stendhal (1975) draws a similar divide between
the powerful emotive forces of passionate love and the more respectful and stylized
rituals of ‘mannered’ love in his 18th century writings. It is interesting to note, therefore,
that the accounts produced by the current study are still constructed with this
correspondence to this distinction. It is apparent, for example, that Factor C shares with
Factor A
þ a rejection of the idea that partnership love holds the magical promise of
being a profound, transformative, essentially fulfilling, and ultimate experience.
In Factor C this, rejection is integral to the account of partnership love as a romantic
myth. These two factors clearly experience partnership love quite differently, yet both
ultimately fill the gap left by the removal of the myth with what they view as a more
realistic (and hence less naive) account of partnership love. Love represents the
consolidation and maintenance of a more mundane (or worldly) alliance. Like Lysias,
these factors believe that love and friendship are synonymous. It follows that heroic
deeds should not be demanded or undertaken ‘in the name’ of love. Viewed from the
other side of the divide however, from the alternative perspectives offered by Factors
A 2 , D, and E, partnership love is precisely that profound and moving experience
which A
þ and C have rejected as mythical. If, for the latter factors, love can be said to
represent the ‘down to earth’ consolidation of relationships, for the former it represents
a fundamental break with the everyday, and a transcendence of the familiar. Cupid’s
arrow (fired, the myths tell us, across the threshold between the gods and the mortals)
punctures the previously sealed-off world of the everyday and exposes the victim to
Socrates’ divine and benign madness. Despite the numerous obstacles preventing its
realization, Factors A 2 , D and E continue to pursue their profound and transcendental
experience.
Simon Watts and Paul Stenner102
Factor B is more difficult to position in relation to this divide. Superficially, it appears
to emphasize the transcendental aspects of partnership love, since it strenuously rejects
the idea of love as involving commitment, dependency or even mutual understanding.
It is by no means transcendental, however, since its main concern is with the mundane
pursuit and satisfaction of (largely physical) pleasure. In this sense it shares the rejection
of the ‘myth’ of romantic love with Factors C and A
þ , but does not retain their concern
with friendships and alliances. Instead, Factor B restricts the expression ‘partnership
love’ to a minimal content: erotic pleasure. One Factor B exemplar even voices an
evolutionar y rationale for this position (a quasi-Darwinian argument which views
partnership love as a mere ‘amplifier’ of the reproductive drive). These various inter-
factor relationships and differences in perspective have been graphically represented on
the conceptual space diagram in Figure 2.
The secular religion of loving relationships
We have suggested that a distinction between companionate and passionate, mundane
and transcendental accounts of partnership love is a well documented historical
phenomenon. We have also shown that such a distinction remains relevant today.
In this final section, we wish to discuss the current cultural climate of partnership love
in a more general and speculative fashion. This climate, we want to argue, is
characterized by the relation of productive tension which holds between the
relationship aspects of love (emphasized and dealt with by Factor A
þ ) and its
emotional feelings aspects (emphasized by Factor A 2 ). Our culture valorizes and
Fi gure 2. Hypotheti cal space di agram i l l ustrati ng the l ocati on of f actors A–E on the
‘mundane/transcendental’ bifurcation, and the ‘commitment/no commitment’ bifurcation.
The subjective experience of par tnership love 103
celebrates both these aspects. We celebrate the feelings of love and happily employ
those feelings as a means of locating our ‘significant other’ (someone who we can be
in a relationship with). This productive tension can be viewed as the orthodox
position of a currently extant ‘secular religion of loving relationships’. We want to
argue that it is this tension which forms the basis of the currently dominant stor y of
partnership love in circulation in the UK (see, for example, Wilkinson & Mulgan
(1995) on the ‘new landscape’ of relationships).
Within this stor y, the twin aspects of love – feelings and relationships – have alone
come to carry the burden of justifying and making sense of short and long term alliances.
One need not commit to the relationship (demanded by Factor A
þ ) in the name of
God, the children, sex, or the family, but one should be inspired to commit on the basis
of the feeling (described by Factor A 2 ). As a result, we increasingly couple and marr y
‘in the name of love’ and are reluctant to do so without first experiencing the strike
of ‘Cupid’s arrow’. Hatfield and Rapson (1996) have noted this trend and describe it as
‘one of the major social movements of our time’. Through the relationship (as Factors
A
þ and D both make clear) both partners can then engage in personal growth and
development, and both should thereafter live for the relationship. This ideal productive
combination of relationship and feeling lies at the heart of the secular religion’s
orthodoxy (see also Luhmann, 1998).
Evidently, all our participants will not live and experience partnership love in
precisely this orthodox fashion. If it is our currently dominant cultural conception,
however, we might expect their experiences to be influenced by this stor y. We might
expect our participants to orient themselves in relation to its orthodoxy. Indeed, this
process is clearly observable within the reported accounts. Factor B, for example,
adopts what might be called a heretical position with respect to the emotional feelings
aspects of the secular religion. What A 2 perceives to be transcendental, Factor
B views only as an evolutionar y complication of the mundane operations of the sex
drive. From this perspective, the orthodox account comes to be seen as an obstacle to
various forms of hedonistic enjoyment. What is held sacred in the secular religion
(the passion and the relationship) is here no more than a profane matter of utility and
pleasure. Likewise, Factor C takes up an atheistic position with respect to the
relationship aspects of the secular religion. The idea of prioritizing relationship issues
(in preference to other, perhaps more individualistic concerns) is to be challenged,
and a ‘couple-centred’ way of life comes to be associated as much with enslavement
as with freedom.
Factor D balances this dissent insofar as it retains faith in the orthodox account.
Factor D refuses even to accept the fundamental separation of feelings and relationships
posited by Factor A. In so doing, it continues to seek an ideal resolution to the
productive tension described earlier. Factor D seeks a love to successfully combine
the passionate and companionate aspects of partnership love. Indeed, the vast majority
of people seem to aspire to this ideal (Hatfield, 1988). This seems to be the dominant
account. In the bipolarity of Factor A, however, we have an empirical finding which
suggests that passion and companionship (feelings and relationships) cannot easily be
combined in this fashion. They appear in our study as diametrically opposed positions or
perspectives. One needs to undertake the most dramatic of personal reconfigurations
(in fact, an almost complete reversal of perspective) to move from the passionate
account articulated in Factor A 2 to the companionate view of Factor A
þ .
The sustenance of a love which seeks to balance both outlooks ought, therefore, to be
somewhat problematic in terms of the abundant presence of one effectively delimiting
Simon Watts and Paul Stenner104
the possibility of the other?. This difficulty seems to reflect common experience.
Indeed, the respective heresy and atheism of Factors B and C can be explained in
precisely these terms (in their different ways, they believe such an ideal combination to
be a romantic myth), as can the dissatisfaction of Factor D, which has come to accept,
despite continued romantic optimism, that partnership love can easily fall short of the
ideal. The wrong partner or circumstances will lead to unfulfilling experiences.
To expect a thoroughgoing combination of passion and companionship may well be a
recipe for perpetual dissatisfaction.
We can be fairly certain that this ‘problem of combination’ reflects common
experience, simply because a special form of cultural account has been developed
to deal with it. This account encourages us to accept a distinct temporal aspect to
our experiences of partnership love. In Hatfield and Walster’s (1978) terminology,
we are encouraged to accept that a passionate phase of partnership love will
typically precede a companionate phase, the latter effectively replacing the former
with the passage of time. Sternberg (1986) acknowledges this same passage via his
triangular theory, while investigations of Lee’s love styles has indicated a similar
temporal dimension (from the passion of eros, to the friendship and reliability of
storge and pragma) at work in our style preferences (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986).
In the reported study, this temporality is reflected in the accounts of Factors F and
G. Factor F describes an initial intense passion which develops over time into a
comparatively formal and ‘role-oriented’ relationship. The initial phase has links to
both the ‘Cupid’s arrow’ account expressed by factor A 2 and to the hedonistic love
of factor B: a temporar y, pleasure-oriented love which must be given up if the long-
term love of respect, commitment, and support is to be accepted. This implies that
combining passion with companionship is not just a cultural but a historical problem,
since Factor F offers a very familiar and traditional account of partnership love as a
‘rite of passage’, whereby one is expected to ‘settle down’ after a period of youthful
passion. Factor G offers another spin on this same process, whereby a period of initial
intensity gives way to a more secure bond based upon the supposedly more enduring
qualities that characterize friendship.
Conclusion
The above discussion has deliberately (and of necessity) followed a course of
simplification in order to draw attention to some of the structural, temporal, cultural,
and historical aspects of our data. We are aware that the actual situation is considerably
more complicated, our subjective experiences necessarily involving alternative forms of
sexuality, as well as the structuring impact of other cultural issues and stories relating to
class, gender, age, regionality, ethnicity, and so on, none of which has been dealt with
explicitly in the current study. We do think we have succeeded, however, in lending
empirical substance to the social psychology of partnership love in a way that is
sympathetic to the holistic nature of our participants’ subjective experiences, and
which does not neglect their culturally and historically situated nature. Although we
have done much to justify our various accounts and explanations, we are also keenly
aware that other plausible readings of our data can certainly be made, and we would
welcome dialogue on this matter. Many other subjective experiences of partnership love
await explication.
The subjective experience of par tnership love 105
References
Antaki, C. (1987). Types of Accounts within relationships. In R. Burnett, P. McGhee, & D. Clarke
(Eds.), Accounting for Relationships. London: Methuen.
Beall, A. E., & Sternberg, R. (1995). The social construction of love. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 12, 417–438.
Brown, S. R. (1980). Political subjectivity: applications of Q Methodology in political science.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Curt, B. (1994). Textuality and tectonics: troubling social and psychological science.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
D’Andrade, R. G. (1984). Cultural meaning systems. In R. A. Schweder & R. A. LeVine (Eds.),
Culture theory: essays on mind, self, & emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Davies, B., & Harre ́, R. (1990). Positioning: the discursive production of selves. Journal for the
Theory of Social Behaviour, 20, 43–63.
Fehr, B. (1988). Prototype analysis of the concepts of love and commitment. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 557–579.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1968). The discovery of grounded theory. London: Weidenfield and
Nicolson.
Good, J (2000). William Stephenson, Cyril Burt and the demise of the London School. Paper
presented at the Histor y and Philosophy of Psychology Section of the British Psychological
Society, Annual Conference, April.
Harvey, J. H., Agostinelli, G., & Weber, A. L. (1989). Account-making and the formation of
expectations about close relationships. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Close relationships. London:
Sage.
Hatfield, E. (1988). Passionate and companionate love. In R. J. Sternberg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The
psychology of love. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R. L. (1996). Love and Sex: cross-cultural perspectives. Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Hatfield, E., & Walster, B. W. (1978). A new look at love. Lantham, MA: University Press of America.
Hecht, M. L., Marston, P. J., & Larkey, L. K. (1994). Love ways and relationship quality. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 11, 25–43.
Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. (1986). A theory & method of love. Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology, 50(2), 392–402.
Hinde, R. A. (1997). Relationships: a dialectical perspective. East Sussex: Psychology Press.
Kitzinger, C., & Stainton Rogers, R. (1985). A Q Methodological study of lesbian identities.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 167–188.
LaRossa, R. (1995). Stories and relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
12(4), 553–558.
Lee, J. A. (1977). A topology of styles of loving. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3,
173–182.
Lee, J. A. (1988). Love styles. In R. J. Sternberg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love. Yale:
Yale University Press.
Luhmann, N. (1998). Love as passion: the codification of intimacy. Stanford: Stanford University
Press, Trans. by J. Gaines, D.L. Jones.
Marston, P. J., Hecht, M. L., Manke, M. L., McDaniel, S., & Reeder, H. (1998). The subjective
experience of intimacy. Passion, and Commitment in Heterosexual Loving Relationships.
Personal Relationships, 5, 15–30.
Marston, P. J., Hecht, M. L., & Robers, T. (1987). True Love Ways: The subjective experience and
communication of romantic love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 387–407.
McAdams, D. P. (1993). Stories we Live. New York: Morrow.
Plato, (1995). Phaedrus. Trans. by A. Nehamas, P. Woodruff. Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Co.
Stainton Rogers, R., & Stainton Rogers, W. (1992). Stories of childhood: shifting agendas of child
concern. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.
Stendhal, (1975). Love. Trans. by G. Sale, S. Sale. Harmondsworth: Penguin Classics.
Simon Watts and Paul Stenner106
Stenner, P., & Marshall, H. (1995). A Q Methodological study of rebelliousness. European Journal
of Social Psychology, 25, 621–636.
Stenner, P., & Stainton Rogers, R. (1998). Jealousy as a manifold of divergent understandings:
A Q Methodological investigation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 71–94.
Stephenson, W. (1936a). The foundations of psychometry: Four factor systems. Psychometrika, 1,
195–209.
Stephenson, W. (1936b). The inverted factor technique. British Journal of Psychology, 26,
344–361.
Stephenson, W. (1953). The study of behaviour: Q technique and its methodology. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Sternberg, R., & Grajek, S. (1984). The nature of love. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 47(2), 312–329.
Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theor y of love. Psychological Review, 93, 119–135.
Sternberg, R. J. (1995). Love as a stor y. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12,
541–546.
Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Love stories. Personal Relationships, 3, 59–80.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Construct validation of a triangular love scale. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 27, 313–335.
Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Love is a story: A new theory of personal relationships. Oxford: Open
University Press.
Stricklin, M (1987). P.C.Q. Factor Analysis Programs for Q-Technique. Lincoln, Nebraska.
Watts, S (2002). Stories of partnership love: Q Methodological investigations. Unpublished Ph.D.
Thesis, University of East London.
Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2005). Doing Q methodology: theory, method and interpretation,
Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2, 67–91.
Wilkinson, H., & Mulgan, G. (1995). Freedom’s children: Work, relationships, and politics for
18–34 year olds in Britain today, 18–34. London: Demos.
Received 29 September 1999; revised version received 28 November 2003
The subjective experience of par tnership love 107