The aim of the research was to define the relationship between personality dimensions based on the five-factor model (neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness and openness to experience) and love styles (eros, ludus, storge, mania, pragma and agape), i.e. to determine whether there is a connection between personality dimensions and love styles. Apart from that, gender differences in love styles were examined.
The research was carried out on a sample of 176 students (82 men and 94 women). The Scale of Personality Self-evaluation (Kardum I. and Smojver I, 1993) and the Scale of Love Attitudes (Hendrick i Hendrick, 1993) were used. The research methods used were correlation and regression analysis, and t-test for independent samples.
There was a statistically significant positive connection between the dimension of neuroticism and mania love style, and a statistically significant negative connection between the dimension of neuroticism and eros love style. Further on, there was a statistically significant positive connection between the dimension of extraversion and eros love style, a statistically significant positive connection between the dimension of agreeableness and eros, storge and agape love styles, a statistically significant positive connection between the dimension of conscientiousness and eros and agape love styles, and a statistically significant negative connection between conscientiousness and ludus and mania love styles.
The results of the regression analysis indicated that conscientiousness was a statistically significant positive predictor of the eros love style (9.8% variance) and agape love style (12% variance), and a statistically significant negative predictor of the ludus love style (9.1% variance). Further on, it was affirmed that the dimension of agreeableness was a statistically significant positive predictor of the agape love style (12% variance), and neuroticism was a statistically significant positive predictor of the mania love style (4% variance). The t-test affirmed that men express ludus love style in their romantic relationships more often than women.
Keywords: love styles, personality dimensions, five-factor personality model
References
1.
Lee JA. Psihologija ljubavi br.
2.
Woll SB. Personality and relationship correlates of loving styles. Journal of Research in Personality. 1989;23(4):480–505.
3.
Wan WWN, Luk CL, Lai JCL. Personality correlates of loving styles among Chinese students in Hong Kong. Personality and Individual Differences. 2000;29(1):169–75.
4.
Tang TT. Romantic relationship: Love styles, Triangular Love and Relationship Satisfaction. Doctor study.
5.
Suzić N. Primijenjena pedagoška metodologija.
6.
Pallant J. SPSS, Priručnik za preživljavanje.
7.
Obradović J i OČM. Psihologija braka i obitelji.
8.
Nikić G. Povezanost stilova ljubavi s privrženošću, brižnošću i seksualnim zadovoljstvima u ljubavnim odnosima. 18(1):83–102.
9.
Nikšić D. Prototipičnost izraza ljubavi i odnos vrijednosti kao partnera s očekivanim izrazima ljubavi. Diplomski rad.
10.
Mallandain I, Davies MF. The colours of love: Personality correlates of love styles. Personality and Individual Differences. 1994;17(4):557–60.
11.
Lester D, Philbrick J. Correlates of styles of love. Personality and Individual Differences. 1988;9(3):689–90.
12.
Aronson E, Wilson TD i A, M R. Socijalna psihologija. IV izdanje.
13.
Lee JA. The colors of love.
14.
Knežević G, Džamonja-Ignjatović T i ĐJ, D. Petofaktorski model ličnosti.
15.
HENDRICK SS, HENDRICK C. Gender differences and similarities in sex and love. Personal Relationships. 1995;2(1):55–65.
16.
Heaven PCL, Da Silva T, Carey C, Holen J. Loving styles: relationships with personality and attachment styles. European Journal of Personality. 2004;18(2):103–13.
17.
J. EH, Eysenck SBG. Personality structure and measurement.
18.
Eysenck HJ. Classification and the Problem of Diagnosis. In: Handbook of abnormal Psychology: An Experimental Approach.
19.
Davies MF. EPQ correlates of love styles. Personality and Individual Differences. 1996;20(2):257–9.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
