One of the greatest challenges that ever befell mankind is the mystery of love. Poets, artists, philosophers and scientists have all attempted time and time again to capture the magic of love on their diverse yet equally unsuccessful canvases.

The questions of why we seek love with such ferocious, intensity to the point that all our actions find its root in our desire to find it, will remain an unanswered one till the end of time. But the silver lining might be that we are closer now to uncovering the truth than our ancestors ever were.

Psychologists have broken down the concept of love to many incomplete, yet insightful theories; all of which make enough sense to surprise us but not enough to answer all of our questions. Here’s a list of the theories that are held in the highest regard among modern academics.

The love triangle

Love according to Robert Sternberg (Triangular theory of love – 2004) is composed of three integral components, the said components being; intimacy, passion and commitment.

Within these facets the ideal form of love will involve a near perfect balance of all three components. The interesting part of the theory is in the portrayals of pseudo love.

Romantic love, one of the five recognized forms of pseudo love, involves intimacy and passion without commitment.

In a similar sense, compassionate love (intimacy and commitment with no passion), infatuated love (only passion), empty love (only commitment) and fatuous love (passion and commitment without intimacy) make up the other main types of pseudo love.

The color wheel
 

John Lee (1973) formulated the theory of the love wheel. He identified six styles of love and named them “colours of love”.

The colours though they are called that, don’t correspond to actual colours. For example ‘eros’ is a colour of love that involves idealization and exaggerated intensity of a relationship. ‘Ludus’ another colour corresponds with an eternal search of excitement and the view of the relationship as a game.

‘Storge’ (stability and friendship in the place of passion and intimacy), ‘Pragma’ (The consideration of a practical checklist of traits in one’s partner), ‘Mania’ (obsession and jealousy) and ‘Agape’ (selfless, unconditional love) make up the rest of the colours on the wheel.

A standard test exists to determine the type of relationship you’re in.

The mere exposure effect

Robert Zajonc (1968), is one very rational explanation of love, which will leave many romantics disgruntled in its wake. The theory involves an operational assumption that humans have an innate tendency to like things that are familiar to us.

Those things that we are exposed to on a regular basis or more often than not are expected to have a higher tendency to attract us. The theory helps to prove the concept of propinquity, which deals with the idea that one primary determinant of interpersonal attraction, is physical proximity.

A study carried out by Festinger et al (1950) is cited as evidence. The results of the study found that people in an apartment complex were more likely to be friends with people who were living in apartments closer to theirs. I personally don’t agree with this theory in a romantic context, but it goes to show that you might have an entirely different set of friends if you lived a few miles away from where you do.

The clone attraction
 

This one is a personal favourite and goes against the age old theory of opposites attracting. A study carried out showed that people were more attracted to distorted forms of their own face when presented with a range of similar such pictures.

The theory even though accepting the advantages of genetic diversity argues the case that people are attracted to others who are similar to them in pretty much every way possible, from belief systems to physical appearance.

Even though the theories on love aren’t as romantic as most would like them to be, it’s comforting to think that there is a reason we feel the way we do about certain people, and maybe we might even be able to find our soul mates a little sooner if we follow the theories.

 

By Dilshan Senaratne