Full Answer Section

• Companionate Love: High Intimacy, Low Passion, High Commitment. (Long-term friendship-based marriage)
• Fatuous Love: Low Intimacy, High Passion, High Commitment. (Based on passion and commitment, often lacking true intimacy, e.g., whirlwind romance/marriage)
• Consummate Love: High Intimacy, High Passion, High Commitment. (The “ideal” love, though it requires maintenance)

How to Complete the Sternberg’s Triangular Love Scale (Self-Reflection Exercise)

Since there isn’t one standardized questionnaire universally called “The Sternberg’s Triangular Love Scale,” the process involves reflecting on your relationship and rating statements related to the three components.

Instructions:

1. Think of a specific relationship you want to evaluate (e.g., a romantic partner, spouse, significant other).

2. Consider the following statements and rate how much they apply to your feelings towards that specific person right now. Use a scale from 1 to 7 for each statement:

   • 1 = Not at all true/strongly disagree
   • 2 = Very slightly true/slightly disagree
   • 3 = Slightly true/slightly agree
   • 4 = Moderately true/moderately agree
   • 5 = Very true/strongly agree
   • 6 = Extremely true/extremely agree
   • 7 = Absolutely true/absolutely agree

Intimacy Items (Rate 1-7):

1. I feel very close to [Partner’s Name].
2. I feel very connected to [Partner’s Name].
3. I share myself (my thoughts and feelings) with [Partner’s Name].
4. I feel very bonded to [Partner’s Name].
5. I feel very understood by [Partner’s Name].
6. I trust [Partner’s Name] completely.
7. I feel very supported by [Partner’s Name].

Passion Items (Rate 1-7):

8. I feel very physically attracted to [Partner’s Name].
9. I feel very romantic towards [Partner’s Name].
10. I feel very excited when I think about being with [Partner’s Name].
11. I feel a strong desire to be physically intimate with [Partner’s Name].
12. I feel a strong “spark” or connection with [Partner’s Name].
13. Being with [Partner’s Name] makes me feel very aroused (physically excited).

Commitment Items (Rate 1-7):

14. I have made a conscious decision to love [Partner’s Name].
15. I am committed to maintaining my love for [Partner’s Name].
16. I plan to have a future with [Partner’s Name].
17. I am willing to work hard to maintain my relationship with [Partner’s Name].
18. I am committed to facing obstacles together with [Partner’s Name].
19. I am dedicated to this relationship.

Calculating Your Score:

1. Sum your ratings for the Intimacy items (1-7). This is your Intimacy Score.
2. Sum your ratings for the Passion items (8-13). This is your Passion Score.
3. Sum your ratings for the Commitment items (14-19). This is your Commitment Score.

• Each subscale score will range roughly from 7 to 49 (7 items * 1-7 scale).
• There isn’t a single “total score” in Sternberg’s model. Instead, you analyze the relative levels of Intimacy, Passion, and Commitment.

Evaluating Your Test Results:

1. Look at your three scores: Intimacy, Passion, Commitment.
2. Identify the highest score(s): Which component(s) are strongest in your relationship right now?
3. Identify the lowest score(s): Which component(s) are weakest?
4. Determine the Type of Love: Based on the relative levels of the three components, which type of love from Sternberg’s model best describes your relationship according to your self-assessment?
   • Are all three scores high? (Consummate Love)
   • Are Intimacy and Passion high, but Commitment low? (Romantic Love)
   • Are Intimacy and Commitment high, but Passion low? (Companionate Love)
   • Are Passion and Commitment high, but Intimacy low? (Fatuous Love)
   • Is only Intimacy high? (Liking)
   • Is only Passion high? (Infatuation)
   • Is only Commitment high? (Empty Love)
   • Are all scores low? (Non-Love)
5. Reflect: Does this description feel accurate to you? How does it make you feel about your relationship?

Is this a valid test of a relationship? Explain.

Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love itself is a well-regarded and influential theoretical framework in psychology. However, the validity of any specific questionnaire designed to measure it depends on how it’s constructed and used.

Arguments for Validity (in principle):

1. Theoretical Grounding: It’s based on a coherent psychological theory that attempts to explain the complex nature of love through distinct, measurable components.
2. Comprehensive: It captures multiple facets of love (emotional, motivational, cognitive) that many simpler definitions miss.
3. Differentiation: It allows for the differentiation between various types of loving relationships, which can be insightful.
4. Empirical Support: Research based on Sternberg’s theory and related scales has shown correlations with relationship satisfaction and stability, suggesting the components have real-world meaning.

Arguments Against/Limitations of Validity (especially for self-administered, non-standardized versions):

1. Self-Report Bias: It relies entirely on self-report. Our own perceptions of our relationships can be biased, influenced by mood, recent events, or idealization. We may not be fully aware of the levels of intimacy, passion, or commitment we truly feel or exhibit.
2. Lack of Standardization: Without using a validated, standardized questionnaire with established reliability and validity statistics (like the original version Sternberg developed or subsequent adaptations), the scores are subjective and difficult to compare meaningfully across different people or over time.
3. Situational Factors: The theory and scale don’t fully account for the influence of external factors (stress, cultural norms, societal pressures) on how love is experienced and expressed.
4. Complexity of Love: Love is incredibly complex and multifaceted. Reducing it to just three components, while useful for theory, might oversimplify the lived experience. Cultural variations in the meaning and expression of love are also not fully captured.
5. Dynamic Nature: Relationships and feelings change. A single snapshot assessment might not capture the dynamic evolution of a relationship over time.

Conclusion:

Sternberg’s Triangular Love Scale, when used as a structured self-reflection tool based on the theory, can be a valuable heuristic or framework for thinking about and understanding your own relationship dynamics. It provides a structured way to consider the different components of love present in your relationship.

However, it should not be considered a perfectly “valid” objective test in the strict psychometric sense, especially if using a non-standardized version. Its main value lies in its ability to promote self-awareness and discussion about the nature of love within a specific relationship, rather than providing a definitive, objective measurement. Its validity as a tool for personal insight is higher than its validity as an absolute measure of relationship quality.