Interpersona | An International Journal on Personal Relationships

interpersona.psychopen.eu | 1981-6472

Articles

Relationship Satisfaction in Young Adults: Gender and Love Dimensions

Satisfação com Relacionamentos Românticos em Adultos Jovens: Gênero e Dimensões do Amor
Satisfacción con las Relaciónes Románticas en Adultos Jóvenes: Género y Dimensiones del Amor

a b
Alexsandro Luiz De Andrade* , João Fernando Rech Wachelke , Anna Beatriz Carnielli
c
Howat-Rodrigues
[a] UFES - Federal University of Espírito Santo, Vitória, Brazil. [b] UFU - Federal University of Uberlândia, Uberlândia, Brazil. [c] USP -
University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.

Abstract
Men and women present differences that go beyond evolutionary mechanisms of reproduction and species maintenance; social and cultural
dimensions are indicated as modeling agents of different configurations of romantic relationships. This study presents the results of relationship
quality models based on Sternberg’s triangular love theory. There were 335 subjects involved in romantic relationships, of whom 190 (56.7%)
were male and 145 (42.3%) were female. Mean age of the participants was 29 years (SD = 9.1 years). The results of the study point out that
love components predict relationship satisfaction differently per gender. For women, the intimacy, passion and commitment variables are
significant predictors, whereas for men the commitment variable was not significant.

Keywords: relationship satisfaction, sex differences, romantic relationship

Resumo
Homens e mulheres apresentam diferenças que vão além de mecanismos evolutivos de reprodução e manutenção da espécie; dimensões
sociais e culturais são indicadas também como agentes de diferentes configurações de relacionamento romântico. Este estudo apresenta
resultados de modelos de relacionamento de qualidade com base na teoria triangular do amor de Sternberg. Participaram da pesquisa 335
sujeitos envolvidos em relacionamentos românticos, dos quais 190 (56,7%) eram do sexo masculino e 145 (42,3%) eram do sexo feminino.
A média de idade dos participantes foi de 29 anos (DP = 9,1 anos). Os resultados do estudo apontaram que os componentes amor predizem
a satisfação com o relacionamento de forma diferente segundo gênero. Para as mulheres, as variáveis paixão, intimidade e comprometimento
são preditoras significativas, enquanto para os homens, a variável compromisso não é significativa.

Palavras-Chave: satisfação em relacionamentos, diferenças de sexo, relacionamento romântico

Resumen
Hombres y mujeres tienen diferencias que van allá de los mecanismos evolutivos de la reproducción y el mantenimiento de las especies,
puesto que las dimensiones sociales y culturales están indicadas también como agentes de diferentes configuraciones de relacionamientos
románticos. Este estudio presenta los resultados de los modelos de calidad basado en la teoría triangular del amor de Sternberg. Participaran
335 individuos comprometidos en las relaciones amorosas estables, de los cuales 190 (56,7%) eran hombres y 145 (42,3%) eran mujeres.
La edad promedio de los participantes fue de 29 años (DE = 9,1 años). Los resultados del estudio mostraron que los componentes del amor
predicen la satisfacción con la relación de forma diferente según el género. Para las mujeres, las variables pasión, intimidad y compromiso
son predictores significativos, mientras que para los hombres, compromiso no es una variable significativa.

Palabras Clave: satisfacción en las relaciones, diferencias de sexo, relación romántica

Interpersona, 2015, Vol. 9(1), 19–31, doi:10.5964/ijpr.v9i1.157

Received: 2014-04-07. Accepted: 2014-11-19. Published (VoR): 2015-06-30.
*Corresponding author at: Av. Fernando Ferrari, nº 514, University Campus of Goiabeiras - CEMUNI VI, Vitória-ES, Zip Code: 29075-910. E-mail:
alexsandro.deandrade@yahoo.com
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited.
Relationship Satisfaction in Young Adults: Gender and Love Dimensions 20

Introduction
Do men and women think, act and feel the same way about love, sex, marriage and fidelity? The psychological
triad of feeling, acting and thinking is a study object of the most diverse theories; within the research field of romantic
relationships, to identify differences and similarities between men and women in vertexes of that triad makes it
possible to understand sociocultural and evolutionary elements of the dynamics of romantic relationships in the
human species.

The popular saying “men are from Mars and women are from Venus” enables to understand the popular imaginary
relative to the differences between men and women in romantic relationships. According to Sprecher and Toro-
Morn (2002) such differences tend to be exaggerated and misunderstood, but some studies found sex differences
about attitudes and beliefs on love. Within the context of gender studies, multiple conceptions, scientific and
political orientations are observed (Narvaz & Koller, 2006). In a general way the scientific perspectives on gender
attribute psychosocial explanations about the behavior of men directed to attitudes linked to work, strength and
individuality, whereas women are directed towards family and care (Spence & Helmreich, 1972; Whatley, 2008).

Specifically in the context of romantic relationships, studies based on Lee’s attitudes model (Hendrick & Hendrick,
1986) signaled that men were more sexually permissive than women and had higher scores in the ludus love
style (cognitive style of game-playing love) and women scored more in storge (cognitive style of friendship love)
(De Andrade & Garcia, 2014; Hendrick & Hendrick, 1995). In face of historic, biological and psychosocial differences
that men and women tackle, and stressing the changes that emerged with the increase of female workforce, new
gender equity roles in many Western countries and new family configurations, this study aims at investigating the
relationship between romantic relationship satisfaction and love components in Sternberg’s (1986) model among
Brazilian men and women.

Relationship Satisfaction
According to Mattson, Rogge, Johnson, Davidson, and Fincham (2013), relationship satisfaction is on the most
important variables in romantic relationship research. Romantic relationship satisfaction corresponds to an indi-
vidual’s judgment about the positivity of his/her relationship (Arriaga, 2001; Avivi, Laurenceau, & Carver, 2009).
According to De Andrade and Garcia (2012), the construct can be accessed through one-dimensional models
(general quality) but also through multidimensional perspectives (specific variables). Specific aspects of romantic
relationships such as, for example, communication, commitment, love, intimacy and commitment can contribute
with relative influence in assessment of the relationship quality.

As can be observed in the literature, relationship quality is a significant predictor of subjective well-being, happiness
and life satisfaction (Diener & Lucas, 2000; Myers, 1992). Neto and Pinto (2015) demonstrate the positive rela-
tionship between satisfaction with love life (global assessment of the quality of love life) and life satisfaction
(global assessment of quality of life) and affective well-being in a Portuguese sample. According to the study,
people who think that they have satisfactory relationships commonly present emotions and affect that are more
positive towards life, and such relationship is modified in older people. For the latter, inferior levels of the relationship
are observed. People facing separation and break-up processes, and consequent low quality in their marital rela-
tionship, go through a process of suffering, pain and mourning (Féres-Carneiro, 2008). In other words, people
satisfied with their romantic relationship perceived the other contexts of live positively.

Interpersona
2015, Vol. 9(1), 19–31
doi:10.5964/ijpr.v9i1.157
De Andrade, Wachelke, & Howat-Rodrigues 21

Amongst the most relevant predictors of relationship satisfaction, good communication strategies can be mentioned
(Overall, Fletcher, Simpson, & Sibley, 2009). Couples with effective communication benefit directly in terms of
the maintenance of relationship quality, just as couples with ineffective strategies face a loss in quality and
therefore have a perception of higher costs, less success in the relationship and more conflict (Christensen &
Shenk, 1991). Within conflict-resolution strategies, Zacchilli, Hendrick, and Hendrick (2009) signal that Eros and
Agape styles are associated with positive strategies for the resolution of conflicts. In contrast, due to low commitment
and adventurous attitudes, Ludus is associated with destructive strategies such as domination and reactive inter-
action. Pragma and Storge, according to the same study, are love styles linked to commitment strategies.

Triangular Model of Love

Robert Sternberg’s triangular love conception (1986, 1989, 1997, 1998) is one of the most relevant theoretical
models within the sphere of romantic relationships phenomena, according to Masuda’s (2003) review; and Hatfield,
Bensman, and Rapson (2012). The model proposes a structure with three essential components of the romantic
relationship: intimacy, passion and decision/commitment. Those aspects are schematically organized and in their
ensemble constitute a triangle that, according to their combination in terms of presence, absence and intensity
of feelings, structure different possibilities of the expression of love (Sternberg, 1986; Yela, 2006). According to
Aron and Westbay (1996), the hypothesis of the three components of love is present in various theories about
the phenomenon. It is also associated with the perspective of the implicit theories on love.

In Sternberg’s theory, intimacy is related to feelings of proximity, consideration, bonds, valuation of the love rela-
tionship and of the companion (Sternberg, 1986; Yela, 2006). Passion is related to the physical attraction aspect
and sexual contact, including interaction aspects linked to the “expression of desires and needs” dyad (Hernandez
& Oliveira, 2003, p. 60) and sex, involving behavioral, affective and cognitive registers of esteem. Finally, de-
cision/commitment is the part of the love feeling that is responsible for the maintenance and decision of keeping
oneself in the relationship, linked to the expression of support, love and consideration (Cassepp-Borges & Teodoro,
2007).

For example, the absence of one of the three basic components would correspond to a “lack of love”. On the
contrary, if all components are present there would be full and complete love (Sternberg, 1989). The presence of
only intimacy would constitute an expression marked by intense affection, very close to a feeling of friendship.
The exclusive presence of passion would lead to intense sexual desire, which would be under risk of extinction
with time. Love based only in decision/commitment would form an “empty love”, composed by strong union, but
little intimacy and physical attraction (Sternberg, 1986, 1989).

For Ainsworth and Baumeister (2012), passion operates as an emotion, whereas intimacy is a condition for the
maintenance of the relationship. According to Kim and Hatfield (2004), couples that experience passionate love
tend to also experience positive affects, whereas companionate relationships are more associated with life satis-
faction. Baumeister and Bratslavsky (1999) signal that changes in intimacy and passion levels are mutually inter-
dependent. As intimacy is a necessary component to the establishment of the relationship, with the passing of
time it tends to increase, just as passion decreases and has its determined course of time (Berscheid, 1983).
Lemieux and Hale (1999) demonstrate the importance of the passion, intimacy and commitment dimensions for
the satisfaction of unmarried American men and women.

Interpersona
2015, Vol. 9(1), 19–31
doi:10.5964/ijpr.v9i1.157
Relationship Satisfaction in Young Adults: Gender and Love Dimensions 22

More recently, in Yela’s (2006) study, Sternberg’s model received a new configuration. Following that perspective,
there would be a subdivision of the passion dimension, with the decomposition in erotic passion and romantic
passion, corresponding to a new hypothesis: a tetra-factorial model of love.

Applications of the triangular model to the understanding of facets of romantic relationships are also seen in per-
sonality studies. In Engel, Olson, and Patrick (2002) the components of love were related to variables of the
model of the big five personality factors. Results showed that the conscientiousness personality trait was a signi-
ficant predictor of the passion, commitment and intimacy variables. According to the authors, that personality di-
mension characterizes aspects of self-control and responsibility, elements that in their ensemble favor partner
involvement in a romantic relationship. In the same direction, Ahmetoglu, Swami, and Chamorro-Premuzic’s
(2010) study with a sample of English adults points out that the agreeableness trait is associated with the three
love dimensions, whereas conscientiousness is related to commitment and intimacy.

Other than personality, age is also a discriminant variable of the triangular aspects of love. Results from Ahmetoglu,
Swami, and Chamorro-Premuzic (2010) indicate that higher age is positively associated with commitment and
intimacy, while passion is negatively related to it, i.e., younger people guide themselves more intensely by elements
of attraction and sexuality and older ones favor aspects associated with security, commitment and depth of in-
volvement.

Gender, Sex and Romantic Relationships

The components of the romantic dyad present differences between them in terms of the generation of quality and
happiness in the relationship. Behavioral differences of men and women cannot be explained only by social and
cultural origins (Berry, Poortinga, Segall, & Dasen, 1992). They are also a product of biological differences (Hatfield
& Rapson, 2002; Sprecher & Toro-Morn, 2002).

Concerning a more social and cultural dimension of romantic relationships, studies demonstrate that people live
differently the experience of love, going further than the biological sexual dimensions attached to the phenomenon
(Fehr & Broughton, 2001; Sprecher & Toro-Morn, 2002). In general, women are more prone to think love associated
with emotional commitment and security components, while men, on their turn, associate it with sexual commitment
elements and the “pleasure of intercourse” (Buss, 2000; Cimbalo & Novell, 1993).

Based on an evolutionary psychology approach, Buss (1989) carried out a study with 37 cultures of 33 countries
about the aspects that influence partner choice, which pointed out that in many cultures men prefer to get involved
with younger women and the women, in contrast, seek association with people with higher age than them. Moreover,
in the physical attraction aspect, the author showed that in most of the studied cultures, with the exception of India,
Poland and Sweden, good appearance significantly predicts the choice of the woman partner, i.e. physical attraction
is more strongly associated with the choice made by men. These tend to choose women with proportional circum-
ferences between waist and hips, a sign of high fertility in Europe and in the United States (Zaadstra et al., 1993).

In terms of the beliefs about love, based on John Alan Lee’s six attitudinal styles of love –Eros (erotic), Pragma
(rational), Ludus (game play), Storge (friendship), Mania (passionate) and Agape (altruistic) (De Andrade & Garcia,
2014, Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986)– studies in various cultures indicate that men tend to have a predominant
outgoing and adventurous style in their romantic interactions (ludus), while women possess more rational (pragma),
friendly and companion (storge), intense and uncontrolled (mania) profiles than men (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1995,
2000; Sprecher & Toro-Morn, 2002). Fabes and Martin (1991) and Mirowsky and Ross (1995) complemented

Interpersona
2015, Vol. 9(1), 19–31
doi:10.5964/ijpr.v9i1.157
De Andrade, Wachelke, & Howat-Rodrigues 23

those findings on love schemes differences between sexes: men are perceived as less expressive and emotional,
while women are seen as more sensitive, emotional and easily susceptible to emotions. In what concerns love
components for men, these involve more passion, whereas for women companionship and intimacy are stressed,
but they result from the commitment that is established in the relationship (Kim & Hatfield, 2004; Sternberg, 1997).

And how would be the relationship between the passion, intimacy and commitment components in men and women’s
satisfaction with the relationship? This study aims at predicting global romantic relationship satisfaction of men
and women from variables linked to Sternberg’s love components model (intimacy, passion and commitment).
To understand peculiarities and generalizations about romantic relationships in Brazilian young adults is something
that is articulated with widely studied aspects in the field of relationships worldwide, and still little explored in that
country (Scorsolini-Comin & Santos, 2010). In the Brazilian context, a considerable proportion of the studies of
the field are still associated with the development of instruments (Cassepp-Borges & Teodoro, 2007) and general
moderals of relationship quality (De Andrade, Garcia, & Cano, 2009).

The hypotheses that guide the study are: (H1) men and women have different main dimensions for the perception
of general relationship satisfaction; (H2) men’s relationship satisfaction is based on passion rather than on elements
of commitment and intimacy; (H3) women’s relationship satisfaction is based on intimacy rather than on elements
of commitment and passion.

Method
Participants
In total, 335 subjects took part of the study. Among them, 190 (56.7%) were male and 145 (42.3%) were female.
A proportion of 70% of participants were university undergraduate students, and the others had concluded high
school. Mean participant age was 29 years (SD = 9.1 years). A condition for inclusion in the study was the fact
that the individual declared to be involved in a romantic relationship at the moment of data collection. The mean
relationship duration was 77.2 months (SD = 80.2 months).

Instruments
The instrument employed in data collection had demographic questions for participant characterization (sex, age,
relationship duration, state of residence, and university course or occupation), as well as two psychometric instru-
ments that had already been validated in a Brazilian context: 1) Reduced version of the Triangular Love Scale in
Brazilian Portuguese (ETAS) validated by Cassepp-Borges and Teodoro (2007): this measure has 3 subscales
that assess the components of love according to Sternberg’s theoretical model (1986), intimacy (proximity and
bond), commitment (decision to be inside the relationship) and passion (physical and sexual attraction). In that
instrument, the participants judges his/her perception on the degree of intensity of the love aspects in the assessed
relationship (in the current research, the romantic relationship existing at the time of data collection). Such evaluation
is given through filling in 18 items. which have Likert-scale format ranging from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 =
“strongly agree. Scores close to 5 indicate a high quantity, for the individual, of the pertinent trait in the relationship.
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients equal or higher than .90. 2) Brazilian version of a general scale of relationship sat-
isfaction (Schumm et al., 1986), translated and validated in a sample of 342 participants with a Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient of .90 (Wachelke, De Andrade, Souza, & Cruz, 2007), a measure composed by three items [“I am
satisfied with my relationship”, “I am satisfied with my companion in what concerns his/her role in the relationship”

Interpersona
2015, Vol. 9(1), 19–31
doi:10.5964/ijpr.v9i1.157
Relationship Satisfaction in Young Adults: Gender and Love Dimensions 24

and “I am satisfied with my relationship with my companion”] completed in a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1
= “strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree”.

Data Collection Procedures

In conformity with the norms of the Brazilian National Health Council, the study was approved by the research
with human beings ethics committee of the Federal University of Santa Catarina, under protocol number 84/06.
With the approval, data collection was conducted in public spaces of university campi and university classrooms
of institutions located in the cities of Vitória and Porto Alegre, two Brazilian state capitals, by means of collective
and individual questionnaire administration. Upon assessing that a participant was available for the data collection,
i.e. was not busy with other activities, a researcher approached him/her and invited the person to participate. After
agreement on the part of the subject, the questionnaire was handed in to him/her to be completed on the spot,
with the availability of the researcher to clear any eventual doubts related to the activity.

Data were analyzed with the help of R software (R Development Core Team, 2010). The technique employed to
characterize relationships between the involved variables was multiple regression.

Results
Prior to the main analyses, the reliability and validity of the employed measures were verified. The scales obtained
the same factor structures observed in the original studies and the following Cronbach’s alpha indicators with the
Brazilian sample: Etas Intimacy: .84, Etas Passion: .84, Etas Commitment: .87 and Relationship satisfaction: .90.

At first a regression model with the general relationship satisfaction scale as the criterion and seven predictors:
the Triangular Love sub-scales (Passion, Commitment, Intimacy) a dummy sex variable (men participants coded
0 as the reference group, and women coded as 1), and the interaction terms between the sex variable and the
love sub-scales. In all regression analyses, multi-item measures were centered. Table 1 presents the descriptive
data for the variables included in the model. Additionally, the correlation between any two variables did not reach
the mean scale reliability, which shows no evidence of multicollinearity according to Campbell and Fiske (1959).

Table 1

Descriptive Data for the Measures Included in the Model – Means, Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations by Sex.

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4

Men
1. ETAS Commitment 4.26 .81 —
2. ETAS Intimacy 4.06 .67 .62*** —
3. ETAS Passion 4.09 .68 .61*** .68*** —
4. Relationship satisfaction 4.22 .77 .50*** .63*** .61*** —
Women
1. ETAS Commitment 4.33 .58 —
2. ETAS Intimacy 4.14 .51 .51*** —
3. ETAS Passion 4.21 .60 .43*** .57*** —
4. Relationship satisfaction 4.20 .78 .60*** .58*** .58*** —
***p < .001.

Interpersona
2015, Vol. 9(1), 19–31
doi:10.5964/ijpr.v9i1.157
De Andrade, Wachelke, & Howat-Rodrigues 25

The first model explained 48.83% of the variance of relationship satisfaction (F(7, 327) = 44.58, p < .001). Since
the only interaction term that was significant was sex × commitment (t = 3.47, p < .001), a second model was run
with the three ETAS sub-scales, the sex variable and only the sex × commitment interaction term. Almost the
2
same amount of variance was explained with the second model (R = 48.83, F(5, 329) = 62.73, p < .001).

Since the first model did not explain the dependent variable better than the second one (F(2, 329) = .08), p = .93),
a decision was made to proceed with the second model, presented in Table 2. A third model was also tested by
adding to the second model the participant age and relationship duration variables. Based on the same analytical
procedures presented previously, the inclusion of such variables did not increase the prediction capacity of the
model.

Table 2

Coefficients, Standard Error and Statistical Tests Relative to Regression Predictors (Second Model).

Predictors b SE t p

(Intercept) 4.25 .04 104.13 < .001

ETAS Commitment .08 .06 1.23 .22
ETAS Intimacy .40 .07 5.69 < .001
ETAS Passion .37 .06 5.71 < .001
Sex dummy -.11 .06 -1.83 .07
Sex × Commitment .39 .09 4.15 < .001
Note. Regression method: Enter (simultaneous insertion of all variables).

The intimacy and passion dimensions were both significant positive predictors of relationship satisfaction. The
interaction of sex and commitment was also significant; simple slopes analyses (Aiken & West, 1991) indicated
that commitment was a significant positive predictor of relationship satisfaction for women participants (β = .43,
p < .001), but not for men (β = .07, p = .22) (see Figure 1).

Discussion
Concerning the Brazilian version of the Triangular Love and Global Relationship Satisfaction measures, we observed
good indicators for construct validity in this sample. Scale reliability indexes were good (all indicators are high
than .84).

As for the hypotheses, H1 is supported by the results. Men and women from our Brazilian sample have complex
differences and similarities in terms of the emotions and feelings towards a relationship. For the male sample the
variables intimacy and passion indicate significant prediction of global satisfaction, whereas for women the three
variables were significant predictors of perceived satisfaction.

As such, Hypothesis H2 is rejected: even though passion is a predictor, intimacy also contributed to the model.
It is thus observed that for male participants not only variables associated with physical and sexual attraction are
important, but also that romantic interaction aspects associated with support, confidence and trust predict positive
experiences in the relationship.

Interpersona
2015, Vol. 9(1), 19–31
doi:10.5964/ijpr.v9i1.157
Relationship Satisfaction in Young Adults: Gender and Love Dimensions 26

Figure 1. Interaction between sex and commitment on relationship satisfaction.

As regards H3, it is rejected. For the sample of women, the satisfaction with the romantic relationship is associated
with the concept of full love within Sternberg’s original model (1986). The predictors of the global evaluation of
relationship quality are the three dimensions of the love triangle: intimacy, passion and commitment. In the invest-
igated sample, commitment had the highest means.

In the same direction, Stephenson, Ahrold, and Meston (2011), in a study about the reasons for sexual involvement
and satisfaction point out that for women the array of variables in the satisfaction assessment is larger than for
men. In addition, variables such as the commitment/love are significant predictors for both women and men, but
with higher predictive value for the former.

Regarding the non-prediction of the commitment variable in the Brazilian men sample for general relationship
satisfaction, such indicator does not signal its irrelevance. Such aspect apparently operates as a rule for men in-
volved in stable relationships –dating and marriage- and is not a variable that is present in the assessment of re-
lationship happiness. However, further studies are suggested to investigate the peculiarities of commitment in
men involved in romantic relationships in Brazil, mainly its relationship with gender rules and stereotypes of men
and women.

In a social psychological view, those differences might be associated with differences of gender and power in re-
lationships. Kephart’s (1967) study with a sample of Western students of different nationalities demonstrated how
differences and similarities between men and women relate to the importance of what love is between the sexes.
In that study, over 1000 students were asked whether they would marry a person of the opposite sex if that person
had all the expected qualities of a companion but one: they would not be in love with such person. The results
pointed out that 65% of men would not accept marrying someone without love, while only 24% objected to such
marriage.

Those results might be associated with sociocultural forces and patterns linked to attachments in Western society
from that time period. Within the present study we did not ask subjects if they would marry with or without love,
but rather we measured the intensity of love components that was present in the relationships of participants at
the time of data collection. According to a study by Ogletree (2010) with a study of American university students

Interpersona
2015, Vol. 9(1), 19–31
doi:10.5964/ijpr.v9i1.157
De Andrade, Wachelke, & Howat-Rodrigues 27

from Texas, men and women have different attitudes toward long term relationships. Men are commonly guided
by more traditions patterns of relationship configuration, whereas women focus more on planning. Gender differ-
ences are also signaled by Baber and Tucker (2006): men indicate less equality support in a relationship than
women. However, in this study conducted with our Brazilian sample, the results contrasted with the ones
presented by Ogletree (2010), in terms of participants’ age and relationship duration. In the Brazilian sample,
those variables did not increase the prediction of relationship quality when the properly affective aspects measured
by ETAS were included in the model.

In Sternberg’s (1986) model the concomitant presence of the passion, intimacy and commitment dimensions is
given as a type of full love; the results of the study demonstrated a higher importance to women of a full love
feeling, while for men the results are associated more with intimacy and passion, contrasting Kephart’s (1967)
results in a comparison. In the perspective of social structural theory (Wood & Eagly, 2002) the notions of different
sexual interactions between men and women possess a relationship with the social roles of each sex in society.
In cultures with more equivalent sexual roles, as observed in some Western countries, the differences in terms
of the constituting elements of the dyadic relation and the differences between men and women tends to occur
with less frequency. That aspect was associated with the results of the present study in the intimacy dimension,
important for both sexes, possibly due to a likely social and sexual equity among the participants of the study.

In general lines, as the historic review presented in Hatfield and Rapson (2005) emphasized, we observe various
transformations in the context of romantic relationships in the last decades: less influence of the family in the
matrimonial market, the growth of the women workforce, and the seeking for more professional satisfaction by
couple members. Thus, as romantic relationships acquire a space of prediction of health and life satisfaction, future
studies should investigate elements involving the difference in quality determinants in participant groups with dif-
ferent relationship durations. Sternberg (1998) pointed out that passion aspects have different configurations in
short duration relationships; in such cases the evaluations are usually more elevated than in long term involvement.
Another variable that is clearly influential in the results of the found model is participants’ culture and country of
origin. According to Schmitt et al. (2009), Landis and O’Shea (2000) and Sternberg (1998), cultural dimensions
are variables that mediate emotions and feelings.

The comparison of different ethnical and cultural groups is suggested for future studies, as well as the measurement
of the referred constructs in a sample with couples with different relationship configurations and life stages. Likewise,
inquiries employing multidimensional romantic relationship quality scales are suggested. Specific aspects of the
love relationship, such as, for example communication and sex, contribute with relative influence in the global
evaluation of the relationship (Fletcher, Simpson, & Thomas, 2000).

The choice of a one-dimensional measure of quality can be cited among the limitations of the study. It is known
that such phenomenon has a multidimensional nature, and future studies shall investigate gender differences in
those more specific models. Likewise, relationship duration, age and the existence of children might also moderate
the role of gender in relationship satisfaction.

Additionally, passion demonstrated predictive value for both men and women. It is an emotion that is commonly
associated with quality (Ratelle, Carbonneau, Vallerand, & Mageau, 2013) and suffers change through time
(Ainsworth & Baumeister, 2012). However, perhaps due to a conservative component of women toward cultural
and social components, that dimension might not be considered as important as are intimacy and commitment.

Interpersona
2015, Vol. 9(1), 19–31
doi:10.5964/ijpr.v9i1.157
Relationship Satisfaction in Young Adults: Gender and Love Dimensions 28

Funding
The authors have no funding to report.

Competing Interests
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Acknowledgments
The authors have no support to report.

References
Ahmetoglu, G., Swami, V., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2010). The relationship between dimensions of love, personality and
relationship length. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 1181-1190. doi:10.1007/s10508-009-9515-5

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ainsworth, S. E., & Baumeister, R. F. (2012). Changes in sexuality: How sexuality changes across time, across relationships,
and across sociocultural contexts. Clinical Neuropsychiatry, 9(1), 32-38.

Aron, A., & Westbay, L. (1996). Dimensions of the prototype of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 535-551.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.535

Arriaga, X. B. (2001). The ups and downs of dating: Fluctuations in satisfaction in newly formed romantic relationships. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(5), 754-765. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.5.754

Avivi, Y. E., Laurenceau, J.-P., & Carver, C. S. (2009). Linking relationship quality to perceived mutuality of relationship goals
and perceived goal progress. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 28(2), 137-164. doi:10.1521/jscp.2009.28.2.137

Baber, K. M., & Tucker, C. J. (2006). The social roles questionnaire: A new approach to measuring attitudes toward gender.
Sex Roles, 54, 459-467. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9018-y

Baumeister, R. F., & Bratslavsky, E. (1999). Passion, intimacy, and time: Passionate love as a function of change in intimacy.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(1), 49-67. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0301_3

Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (1992). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications.
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Berscheid, E. (1983). Emotion. In H. H. Kelley, E. Berscheid, A. Christensen, J. H. Harvey, T. L. Huston, G. Levinger, E.

McClintock, L. A. Peplau, & D. R. Peterson (Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 110-168). New York, NY: Freeman.

Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral
and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00023992

Buss, D. M. (2000). The dangerous passion: Why jealousy is as necessary as love and sex. New York, NY: Free Press.

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multi-trait multi-method matrix.
Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105. doi:10.1037/h0046016

Cassepp-Borges, V., & Teodoro, M. (2007). Propriedades psicométricas da versão brasileira da Escala Triangular do Amor
de Sternberg. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 20, 513-522. doi:10.1590/S0102-79722007000300020

Interpersona
2015, Vol. 9(1), 19–31
doi:10.5964/ijpr.v9i1.157
De Andrade, Wachelke, & Howat-Rodrigues 29

Christensen, A., & Shenk, J. L. (1991). Communication, conflict, and psychological distance in non-distressed, clinic, and
divorcing couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 458-463. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.59.3.458

Cimbalo, R. S., & Novell, D. O. (1993). Sex differences in romantic love attitudes among college students. Psychological
Reports, 73(1), 15-18. doi:10.2466/pr0.1993.73.1.15

De Andrade, A. L., & Garcia, A. (2012). Desenvolvimento de uma medida multidimensional para avaliação de qualidade em
relacionamentos românticos - Aquarela-R. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 25(4), 634-643.
doi:10.1590/S0102-79722012000400002

De Andrade, A. L., & Garcia, A. (2014). Escala de crenças sobre amor romântico: Indicadores de validade e precisão. Psicologia:
Teoria e Pesquisa, 30(1), 63-71. doi:10.1590/S0102-37722014000100008

De Andrade, A. L. D., Garcia, A., & Cano, D. S. (2009). Preditores da satisfação global em relacionamentos românticos.
Psicologia: Teoria e Prática, 11(3), 143-156.

Diener, E., & Lucas, R. (2000). Subjective emotional well-being. In M. Lewis & J. M. Havil-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Engel, G., Olson, K. R., & Patrick, C. (2002). The personality of love: Fundamental motives and traits related to components
of love. Personality and Individual Differences, 32(5), 839-853. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00090-3

Fabes, R. A., & Martin, C. L. (1991). Gender and age stereotypes of emotionality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
17, 532-540. doi:10.1177/0146167291175008

Fehr, B., & Broughton, R. (2001). Gender and personality differences in conceptions of love: An interpersonal theory analysis.
Personal Relationships, 8, 115-136. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2001.tb00031.x

Féres-Carneiro, T. (2008). Separação: O doloroso processo de dissolução da conjugalidade. Estudos de Psicologia, 8(3),
367-374.

Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., & Thomas, G. (2000). The measurement of perceived relationship quality components: A
confirmatory factor analytic approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(3), 340-354.
doi:10.1177/0146167200265007

Hatfield, E., Bensman, L., & Rapson, R. L. (2012). A brief history of social scientists’ attempts to measure passionate love.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29, 143-164. doi:10.1177/0265407511431055

Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R. L. (2002). Passionate love and sexual desire: Cross-cultural and historical perspectives. In A.
Vangelisti, H. T. Reis, & M. A. Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Stability and change in relationships (pp. 306-324). Cambridge, United
Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R. (2005). Love and sex: Cross-cultural perspectives. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (1986). A theory and method of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 392-402.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.392

Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1995). Gender differences and similarities in sex and love. Personal Relationships, 2, 55-65.
doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1995.tb00077.x

Interpersona
2015, Vol. 9(1), 19–31
doi:10.5964/ijpr.v9i1.157
Relationship Satisfaction in Young Adults: Gender and Love Dimensions 30

Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (2000). Romantic love. In C. Hendrick & S. S. Hendrick (Eds.), Close relationships: A sourcebook.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hernandez, J. A. E., & Oliveira, I. M. B. (2003). Os componentes do amor e a satisfação. Psicologia Ciência e Profissão, 23(1),
58-69. doi:10.1590/S1414-98932003000100009

Kephart, W. M. (1967). Some correlates of romantic love. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 29, 470-479. doi:10.2307/349585

Kim, J., & Hatfield, E. (2004). Love types and subjective well-being: A cross-cultural study. Social Behavior and Personality,
32, 173-182. doi:10.2224/sbp.2004.32.2.173

Landis, D., & O’Shea, W. A., III (2000). Cross-cultural aspects of passionate love: An individual differences analysis. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 752-777. doi:10.1177/0022022100031006005

Lemieux, R., & Hale, J. L. (1999). Intimacy, passion, and commitment in young romantic relationships: Successfully measuring
the Triangular Theory of Love. Psychological Reports, 85, 497-503. doi:10.2466/pr0.1999.85.2.497

Masuda, M. (2003). Meta-analyses of love scales: Do various love scales measure the same psychological constructs?
Japanese Psychological Research, 45(1), 25-37. doi:10.1111/1468-5884.00030

Mattson, R. E., Rogge, R. D., Johnson, M. D., Davidson, E. K. B., & Fincham, F. D. (2013). The positive and negative semantic
dimensions of relationship satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 20, 328-355. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2012.01412.x

Mirowsky, J., & Ross, C. E. (1995). Sex differences in distress: Real or artifact? American Sociological Review, 60, 449-468.
doi:10.2307/2096424

Myers, D. G. (1992). The pursuit of happiness: Who is happy and why? New York, NY: William Morrow & Company.

Narvaz, M. G., & Koller, S. H. (2006). Famílias e patriarcado: Da prescrição normativa à subversão criativa. Psicologia e
Sociedade, 18(1), 49-55. Retrieved from
http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=309326332007doi:10.1590/S0102-71822006000100007

Neto, F., & Pinto, M. C. (2015). Satisfaction with love life across the adult life span. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 10,
289-304. doi:10.1007/s11482-014-9314-6

Ogletree, S. M. (2010). With this ring, I thee wed: Relating gender roles and love styles to attitudes towards engagement rings
and weddings. Gender Issues, 27, 67-77. doi:10.1007/s12147-010-9090-z

Overall, N. C., Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., & Sibley, C. G. (2009). Regulating partners in intimate relationships: The
costs and benefits of different communication strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 620-639.
doi:10.1037/a0012961

Ratelle, C. F., Carbonneau, N., Vallerand, R. J., & Mageau, G. (2013). Passion in the romantic sphere: A look at relational
outcomes. Motivation and Emotion, 37(1), 106-120. doi:10.1007/s11031-012-9286-5

R Development Core Team. (2010). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation
for Statistical Computing.

Interpersona
2015, Vol. 9(1), 19–31
doi:10.5964/ijpr.v9i1.157
De Andrade, Wachelke, & Howat-Rodrigues 31

Schmitt, D. P., Youn, G., Bond, B., Brooks, S., Frye, H., Johnson, S., . . . Stoka, C. (2009). When will I feel love? The effects
of culture, personality, and gender on the psychological tendency to love. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 830-846.
doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.05.008

Schumm, W. R., Paff-Bergen, L. A., Hatch, R. C., Obiorah, F. C., Copeland, J. M., Meens, L. D., & Bugaighis, M. A. (1986).
Concurrent and discriminant validity of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48,
381-387. doi:10.2307/352405

Scorsolini-Comin, F., & Santos, M. A. (2010). Satisfação conjugal: Revisão integrativa da literatura científica nacional. Psicologia:
Teoria e Pesquisa, 26(3), 525-532. doi:10.1590/S0102-37722010000300015

Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1972). The Attitudes toward Women Scale: An objective instrument to measure attitudes
toward the rights and roles of women in contemporary society. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 2,
66.

Sprecher, S., & Toro-Morn, M. (2002). A study of men and women from different sides of Earth to determine if men are from
Mars and women are from Venus in their beliefs about love and romantic relationships. Sex Roles, 46, 131-147.
doi:10.1023/A:1019780801500

Stephenson, K. R., Ahrold, T. K., & Meston, C. M. (2011). The association between sexual motives and sexual satisfaction:
Gender differences and categorical comparisons. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 607-618. doi:10.1007/s10508-010-9674-4

Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93, 119-135. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.119

Sternberg, R. J. (1989). El triangulo del amor: Intimidad, passión y compromisso. Barcelona, Spain: Paidós.

Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Construct of a triangular love scale. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 313-335.
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199705)27:3<313::AID-EJSP824>3.0.CO;2-4

Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Cupid’s arrow: The course of love through time. London, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Wachelke, J. F. R., De Andrade, A. L., Souza, A. M., & Cruz, R. M. (2007). Estudo complementar da validade fatorial da Escala
Fatorial de Satisfação em Relacionamento e predição de satisfação global com a relação. Psico-USF, 12(2), 221-225.

Whatley, M. A. (2008). The dimensionality of the 15 item attitudes toward women scale. Race, Gender, & Class, 15(1), 265-273.

Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of
sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 699-727. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.5.699

Yela, C. (2006). The evaluation of love: Simplified version of the scales for Yela’s Tetrangular Model based on Sternberg’s
model. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 22, 21-27. doi:10.1027/1015-5759.22.1.21

Zaadstra, B. M., Seidell, J. C., Van Noord, P. A. H., Velde, E. R., Habbema, J. D. F., Vrieswijk, B., & Karbaat, J. (1993). Fat
and female fecundity: Prospective study of effect of body fat distribution on conception rates. British Medical Journal, 306,
484-487. doi:10.1136/bmj.306.6876.484

Zacchilli, T. L., Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (2009). The Romantic Partner Conflict Scale: A new scale to measure relationship
conflict. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 1073-1096. doi:10.1177/0265407509347936

Interpersona PsychOpen is a publishing service by Leibniz Institute

2015, Vol. 9(1), 19–31 for Psychology Information (ZPID), Trier, Germany.
doi:10.5964/ijpr.v9i1.157 www.zpid.de/en