演变，情感与理性：爱

心理学: 09 演变，情感与理性：爱 Love (一)

Lecture 9 - Evolution, Emotion, and Reason: Love (Guest Lecture by Professor Peter

Salovey)

. I4 U& Z5 T/ i; h; a5 n7 [ / b

Overview:

4 E2 I\_% W- |1 w6 ]4 G

Guest lecturer Peter Salovey, Professor of Psychology and Dean of Yale College, introduces students to the dominant psychological theories of love and attraction. Specific topics include the different types of love, the circumstances that predict attraction, and the situations where people mistakenly attribute arousal for love.

Reading assignment:

% }- b2 T ( ]- o* s* |8 `, a@; F

Gray, Peter. Psychology (5th edition), pp. 456-458

演讲文本

Introduction to Psychology: Lecture 9 Transcript

February 14, 2007

5 N/ G% }, ^# B# M

Professor Paul Bloom: I'm delighted to introduce the first guest lecturer for this Introduction to Psychology course, Dean Peter Salovey. Peter is an old friend and colleague. Many of you--I think everybody here knows of him through his role as Dean of Yale College. I'll just, in this context of this introduction, mention two other things about him. One is prior to being dean and in fact, still as a dean, he's an active scientist and in particular, a social psychologist actively involved in studying health psychology, the proper use of psychological methods to frame health messages, and also is the founder and developer of the idea of emotional intelligence, an idea he's done a huge amount of research on. Secondly, Peter is or was an active and extremely well-known teacher at Yale College. He taught at one point, the largest course ever in Yale College – a course on Psychology in Law which broke every record ever had here. And before that, during that, and after that, he was a legendary Introduction to Psychology teacher. And I think--and he had some

reason for why he was so legendary with his lecture today on the topic of love.

[applause]

/ Y1 a\

Dean Peter Salovey: Thanks very much. Okay. Thank you very much, Professor Bloom. It really is a pleasure to come and lecture to you today on Valentine's Day on the topic of love. My main area of research is human emotion. And love is an emotion. It's not one that I study personally, at least not in the lab, and--but it is fun to talk about. And it is a topic that lends itself to many social psychological phenomena. It's also great to be able to come in and guest lecture. One of the things I very much miss since serving as dean is the opportunity to teach Psychology 110. And although I love being dean, I do miss teaching Introductory Psychology, the feeling of exposing people to

ideas that maybe you hadn't heard before.

Well, I suspect some of the ideas in this talk you'll have not heard before and for a variety of reasons. A couple of the things you'll notice is that some of the experiments I'll talk about today are not the kinds of experiments that can be done anymore. They're not considered ethically acceptable but they were done in the ‘50s and ‘60s and early ‘70s when ethical standards were different and so we can teach them. We just can't give you the same experiences that some of the

college students that we'll talk about today in these studies had.

% n\

The other thing I will mention is that there is a certain androcentric and heterosexual quality to much of the social psychological research on romantic love. You'll see that in the experiments. Usually, the participants are men and usually the targets are women in these experiments. I'm not endorsing this as the only way to study love. It just happens to be the way these experiments were done and so I mention this caution right from the beginning. We'll have to think about--One of the things you should think about is do you think these experiments generalized to other kinds of dyadic relationships. And that's a question that I think you can ask throughout this lecture.

; E\k; X6 [# M& Y8 F6 T) ^3 Z7 _

Okay. So let's get started. And to start things off I think what we need to do is consider a definition. I'm going to define what love is but then most of the experiments I'm going to talk about are really focused more on attraction than love--who finds each other of romantic interest that might then develop into a love relationship. But let's start with a definition of love. And I'm going to pick a definition from a former colleague, Robert Sternberg, who is now the dean at Tufts University but was here on our faculty at Yale for nearly thirty years or so. And he has a theory of love that argues that it's made up of three components: intimacy, passion, and commitment, or what is sometimes called decision commitment. And these are relatively straightforward. He

argued that you don't have love if you don't have all three of these elements.

( @4 Z' m) ?0 i

Intimacy is the feeling of closeness, of connectedness with someone, of bonding. Operationally, you could think of intimacy as you share secrets, you share information with this person that you

don't share with anybody else. Okay. That's really what intimacy is, the bond that comes from sharing information that isn't shared with other--with many other people. Second element is passion. Passion is what you think it is. Passion is the--we would say the drive that leads to romance. You can think of it as physical attraction or sex. And Sternberg argues that this is a required component of a love relationship. It is not, however, a required component of taking a

shower in Calhoun College. [a Yale dormitory] [laughter]

The third element of love in Sternberg's theory is what he calls decision or commitment, the decision that one is in a love relationship, the willingness to label it as such, and a commitment to maintain that relationship at least for some period of time. Sternberg would argue it's not love if you don't call it love and if you don't have some desire to maintain the relationship. So if you have all three of these, intimacy, passion and commitment, in Sternberg's theory you have love. Now what's interesting about the theory is what do you have if you only have one out of three or two out of three? What do you have and how is it different if you have a different two out of three? These are--What's interesting about this kind of theorizing is it give--it gives rise to many different permutations that when you break them down and start to look at them carefully can be quite interesting. So what I've done is I've taken Sternberg's three elements of love, intimacy, passion and commitment, and I've listed out the different kinds of relationships one would have if you had

zero, one, two or three out of the three elements.

6 O\`: V6 r: ?7 | ?2 q

And I'm using names or types that Sternberg uses in his theory. These are really from him. Some of these are pretty obvious. If you don't have intimacy, if you don't have passion, if you don't have commitment, you don't have love. Sternberg calls this non-love. That's the technical term. And [laughs] essentially what he's saying is the relationship you now have to the person sitting next to you, presuming that you're sitting next to a random person that you didn't know from your college, is probably non-love. If it's something else, we could talk about it at the end of the lecture or

perhaps when I get to it in a moment.

Now let's start to add elements. Let's add intimacy. This is sharing secrets, a feeling of closeness, connectedness, bonding. Let's say we have that with someone but we don't have passion, that is, no sexual arousal, and no commitment to maintain the relationship. This is liking. Sternberg calls it liking. And liking is really what is happening in most typical friendships, not your closest friendship but friendships of a casual kind. You feel close, you share certain information with that person that you don't share with other--many other people, but you're not physically attracted and

there's no particular commitment to maintaining this for a long period of time.

: Z5 [6 d# D4 A0 p& |8 ~& H

Now, what if you're not intimate, you're not committed, but you're passionate; you feel that sexual arousal. This is what Sternberg would call infatuation. And that term probably works for you too, infatuated love, and this is love at first sight. \because I don't know you, I'm not committed to defining this as anything, I'm not committed to the

future. In fact, I'm not thinking about the future. I'm thinking about right now but boy, am I attracted.\

The third kind of one-element relationship is there's no intimacy, right, no bonding, no closeness, no secrets, no physical attraction, no sexual arousal, but by gosh, we are going to maintain this relationship, we are committed to it for all time. Sternberg calls that \kind of interesting. It's often the final stage of long-term relationships that have gone bad. \don't share information with each other anymore so there's no intimacy. We don't feel physically attracted to each other anymore, there's no passion, but we'd better stay together for the kids, right? Or we've got to stay together for appearance's sake or we'd better stay together because financially it would be a disaster if we don't\

that people might commit to each other. That's what Sternberg calls empty love.

Now what's interesting is in societies where marriages are arranged this is often the first stage of a love relationship. These two people who have maybe never seen each other before, who have never shared secrets so there's no intimacy, who have never--don't know if they're physically attracted to each other or on their wedding day revealed to each other and committed legally and sometimes religiously to each other. Right? The commitment is there but at that moment nothing else might be there. What's interesting of course is that such relationships don't seem to have any greater chance of ending in divorce than people who marry for love. But there's a big confound, there's a big problem in studies of those kind of relationships. What might it be? Anybody. What might be the problem in the statement I just made that these kind of relationships are just as likely

to survive as people who marry for love? Yes.

, i: C9 X; o7 r0 h% s! T

! o# z) `; a2 AStudent: [inaudible]

Dean Peter Salovey: Yeah. So they may occur; they're more likely to occur in societies that frown on divorce. They make it very costly, socially costly, to divorce, so then they stay together for all

kinds of reasons, not always such good ones.

$ K: b\k/ Q$ W5 ?4 o\, J, @4 T8 Y z% G7 z0 ]) w

All right. Now who was it who sang the song \Who was it? It was Meat Loaf. All right. Professor Bloom says it was Meat Loaf. It was Meat

Loaf. You're all saying, \of Three Ain't Bad.\secrets, passion, we feel physically attracted to each other but we're not making any commitments here.\commitment, Romeo and Juliet when they first met. This is often the way relationships start: \like each other, I'm physically attracted to each other, I--to you, I enjoy spending time with you but I'm not making any long-term commitments. So I'm not even willing to use the ‘L' word in describing what it is we have.\

That's romance. That's romantic love.

Now, what if you have intimacy, \physical attraction but we are really committed to this relationship.\\friends forever,\

the Greek ideal in relationships of some kind.

All right. What if we have passion, \to really know that much about you, I don't want to really share anything of me with you, but I am committed to maintaining this physical attraction to you\calls \shotgun wedding. Maybe you find yourself in Las Vegas and you get married for a day and a half and then realize that this wasn't such a good idea. And maybe your name is Britney and you're a

singer. [laughter]

) b2 H0 U3 ]! V0 e\+ F\F0 Q. K b6 P: f6 l0

Well, anyway, you've got the idea. That's fatuous love. \for sex\anything in common, we might not share anything with each other, we might not trust each other, we are not particularly bonded to each other. On the other hand, if you have all three, intimacy, passion, commitment, this is \– complete love. This is

how he defines love.

# ?% l V: l1 \\; c+ @6 F9 v; A/ h5 m! U, q- [; ]$ @0 z, R2 L6 F' S

Okay. So now you have a definition of love and you can now, as a homework assignment, sit down tonight and make a list of every person you know by the three elements of love and just start putting the check marks in the boxes and tallying up your personal love box score. And we don't want to collect those. We don't even want to see those but you can have fun with that. Then you can ask the other people to do it too and you can compare with each other. [laughter] And if you