Evaluate Your Relationships Based On Sternberg's Triangular

Evaluate Your Relationships Based On Sternbergs Triangular Theory Of

Evaluate your relationships based on Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love. Refer to Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love (Donatelle, p. 146). Consider each of the following relationships: Your parents, Your best friend, Your significant other (if any), A close relative (other than your parents) that you get along with well, A close relative (other than your parents) that you do not get along with. Section 1: Use approximately 500 words. Compare the 3 dimensions of the Triangular Theory of Love and describe each of these relationships. Be specific about each dimension and why you ranked them the way you did. Section 2: Use approximately 250 words. How do you think they would respond if they were asked to describe their relationship with you?

Paper For Above instruction

The Triangular Theory of Love, developed by psychologist Robert Sternberg, posits that love can be understood through three interrelated components: intimacy, passion, and commitment. These elements combine in various ways to form different types of love, and applying this framework to personal relationships deepens our understanding of their dynamics. This essay evaluates five relationships in my life—my parents, my best friend, my significant other, a close relative I get along with well, and a close relative I do not get along with—through the lens of Sternberg's theory. I will analyze each relationship based on the three dimensions and explain my reasoning, then explore how I think these individuals would describe their relationship with me.

Analysis of Relationships Using the Three Dimensions

First, my relationship with my parents is characterized primarily by high commitment and a significant degree of intimacy, though passion is relatively moderate. The commitment stems from a lifelong bond and shared familial responsibilities, which have fostered a deep sense of loyalty and stability. The intimacy is high, evidenced by open communication and emotional support. However, the passion component, often linked to romantic attraction, is less prominent, aligning with a familial relationship. I ranked this relationship as strong in commitment and intimacy because we have a steady, trusting relationship, though passion is minimal given the familial context.

My best friend exemplifies high intimacy and passion but less formalized commitment than familial bonds. We share a deep emotional connection and trust (intimacy), along with enthusiasm and excitement in our interactions (passion). While our commitment exists, it is more flexible, based on mutual trust and ongoing social engagement rather than lifelong vows. I rated this relationship high in intimacy and passion because of our frequent, emotionally rich interactions, also recognizing that commitment, while strong, is less institutionalized than with family.

My significant other involves all three dimensions prominently, with high intimacy, passion, and commitment. This relationship is characterized by emotional closeness, physical attraction, and a mutual desire for long-term involvement. We share personal vulnerabilities, romantic feelings, and plans for a future together, making it a consummate form of love in Sternberg's framework. I rated all three dimensions as high because of the profound emotional connection, physical attraction, and the intention to maintain the relationship over time.

With a close relative I get along with well, the relationship is marked by high intimacy and commitment but low passion. We enjoy a deep understanding and shared experiences, demonstrating a strong emotional bond. However, the relationship lacks romantic or physical passion, consistent with a sibling or cousin relationship focused on companionship and mutual support. I ranked this relationship high in intimacy and commitment but low in passion, which accurately reflects its nature.

In contrast, my relationship with a close relative I do not get along with well is characterized by low intimacy, commitment, and passion. There are frequent misunderstandings, minimal emotional closeness, and a lack of effort to sustain the relationship. I rated it as low across all dimensions because the interaction is strained and reflects underlying conflicts and distance rather than closeness or loyalty.

Individual Perspectives on Their Relationships

If these individuals were asked to describe their relationship with me, their responses would vary based on their perceptions and experiences. My parents might describe our relationship as stable, supportive, and rooted in familial duty, emphasizing our shared history and trust. They may express that our bond is nurturing but less passionate, as is typical for parent-child relationships. My best friend might describe our bond as emotionally rich and exciting, highlighting moments of fun, trust, and mutual understanding, possibly perceiving our connection as close-knit and dynamic. My significant other would likely see the relationship as deeply meaningful, characterized by love, trust, and a shared vision for the future, emphasizing emotional and physical closeness. Conversely, the relative I do not get along with would probably describe a strained relationship, possibly focusing on disagreements or lack of closeness, and may feel that the relationship lacks trust or mutual respect. The relative I get along with well might describe a comfortable, caring connection marked by understanding, shared interests, and support, viewing us as close but non-romantic companions. These varying perspectives are shaped by each person's values, expectations, and experiences, which influence their perceptions of relationship quality and depth.

Conclusion

Applying Sternberg's Triangular Theory of Love to my personal relationships reveals the nuanced ways different bonds are composed of varying degrees of intimacy, passion, and commitment. Understanding these components helps illuminate the strengths and challenges within each relationship, fostering greater awareness and potentially guiding efforts to nurture more balanced and fulfilling connections. Recognizing how each relationship aligns with the three dimensions also provides insight into how to approach strengthening weaker areas, such as increasing intimacy or commitment where needed, ultimately enriching the quality of my interpersonal bonds.

References

  • Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93(2), 119–135.
  • Donatelle, R. J. (2017). Wellness: Concepts and applications. Pearson.
  • Fehr, B. (1996). Friendship processes. Sage Publications.
  • Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524.
  • Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 367–389). Wiley.
  • Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(2), 241–253.
  • Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1978). Interpersonal attraction. Addison-Wesley.
  • Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., & Thomas, G. (2000). Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(5), 579–596.
  • Lee, S. J., & Rovine, M. J. (2004). Attraction and satisfaction in romantic relationships. Journal of Social Psychology, 144(5), 519–535.
  • Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(3), 226–244.

Related Assignments