COPYRIGHT August 11, 1994
USING ELEMENTARY BEHAVIORISM
TO UNDERSTAND AND CREATE ROMANTIC LOVE
Marshall Lev Dermer
Department of Psychology
University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee
Milwaukee, WI 53201
dermer@csd.uwm.edu
....................................................
. No part of this manuscript shall be reproduced .
. in hard copy format, for commercial purposes, .
. without the author's permission. .
....................................................
Love is most often thought to be an invisible force,
inside a person, that causes romantic behavior. This
essay, first, briefly reviews two theories that use such
"inner" explanations. The essay next introduces
Skinner's (1953) "outer" approach for explaining
behavior. Subsequently, the essay critically reviews
Skinner's interpretations of love and offers a more
complete "outer" interpretation by examining what a
fictitious Jack should do if he wants a fictious Jill to
romantically love him. There is, of course, a difference
between what someone should do and what they are
motivated and capable of doing. After discussing these
issues, the essay reviews limitations and novel aspects of
the theory offered here.
LOVE AS AN INNER CAUSE
Late in 12th century France, Andreaus Cappellanus
defined love as "a certain inborn suffering derived from
the sight of and excessive meditation upon the beauty of
the opposite sex, which causes each one to wish above all
things the embraces of the other and by common desire to
carry out all of love's precepts in the other's embrace"
(1959, p. 28). Some 800 years later, Zick Rubin, defined
romantic love to be " . . . an invisible package of
feelings, thoughts, and behavioral predispositions within
an individual" (1973, p. 212) with respect to a
particular person of the opposite sex which includes
three components:
_attachment_, reflecting "powerful desires to be in
the other's presence, to make physical contact, to
be approved of, to be cared for" (p. 213),
_intimacy_, reflecting ". . . close and confidential
communication between two people, through nonverbal
as well as verbal channels" (p. 214),
and
_caring_, reflecting "giving to another person"
(p. 213).
Rubin (1970) developed the following measure of
romantic love. Each item requires a rating ranging from
"Not at all true" to "Definitely true." A high level of
love is indicated by rating each item to be true.
Table 1
Rubin's Romantic Love Scale
--------------------------------------------------------
Attachment Items
If I could never be with _______, I would feel miserable.
It would be hard for me to get along without _______.
If I were lonely, my first thought would be to seek
_______ out.
Intimacy Items
I feel that I can confide in _______ about virtually
everything.
I would greatly enjoy being confided in by _______ .
I would forgive _______ for practically anything.
Caring Items
One of my primary concerns is _______'s welfare.
I would do almost anything for _______ .
I feel responsible for _______'s well-being.
---------------------------------------------------------
Culture always changes, yet there are similarities
between Andreas's and Rubin's definitions. Andreas's
definition suggests a strong _attachment_ component. His
other observations, for example, "A true lover considers
nothing good except what he thinks will please his
beloved" (1959, p. 185) suggest a strong _caring_
component. Then, of course, there is sexual behavior
which is explicit in Andreas's conception and implicit in
Rubin's (see Dermer & Pyszczynski, 1978).
But there is an even more basic similarity: both
conceptualize love to be an internal, invisible cause.
Love is internal because it is supposedly an entity or
process beneath a person's skin. Love is invisible
because supposedly neither a person in love nor those
around such a person can directly see the person's love.
What can be seen, according to such a conceptualization,
is only the person's romantic behavior.
The strategy of inferring internal, invisible
entities and processes has been productive in the
physical sciences. Modern electronic computers, being
human creations, are well understood and have become
useful models for building psychological theories that
utilize internal causes (see e.g., Berscheid, 1983, p.
127). Andreas could not use the computer as a model for
the human mind, yet a sample of his "rules of love"
reveals the following potential invisible, inner causes:
love, shame, desire, value, character, jealousy, thought,
and passion.
Partially because it is easy to invent invisible,
inner causes there are many psychological terms and
theories. So many inferred causes and theories of their
inter-relations are postulated that it is difficult to
use the work of others (see e.g., Allport, 1969; Staats,
1981). Skinner stated the problem this way:
What the political scientist has to say about man
proves to be of little value to the psychotherapist,
while the individual who emerges from educational
psychology bears no familial resemblance to economic
man. It is not likely that the human organism is
compartmentalized in this way. (1953, p. 334)
The fragmentation is so great that scholars of human
behavior often ignore each other's theories and research
with other organisms.
LOVE AS BEHAVIOR UNDER THE CONTROL OF OUTER CAUSES
For behaviorists love is fundamentally behavior.
Behavior is usefully defined as any activity that is
_under the control of current or past environmental
conditions_. The italicized phrase is very important. For
example, although the physical form of a kiss provided
because of love might be identical to a kiss provided
because of promises of future monetary reward, these
formally identical kisses would not, according to a
behavioristic definition, be considered identical because
they are controlled, in theory, by different
environmental conditions. In everyday language, this
distinction is made by noting that the meaning of the two
kinds of kisses differ.
Just as kissing and other forms of public behavior
can be defined in terms of their form and controlling
variables, inner behavior such as seeing, hearing, and
smelling can be similarly defined. Behaviorists consider
such private behavior to be observable because there is
often one person who can observe such behavior: the
person in whose body these activities are occurring!
Private behavior, however, is never considered to be a
sufficient explanation for public behavior and it
certainly is not considered necessary for public behavior
(see Day, 1969; Skinner, 1945, 1953, 1957, 1974). Again,
according to a behavioristic philosophy the ultimate
explanation of all behavior, public and private, is the
current and past environmental conditions which control
behavior.
Skinner's Interpretation of Love
In Skinner's utopian novel, _Walden Two_, Frazier says
"What is love . . . except another name for the use of
{positive reinforcement}? and Burris replies "or vice
versa" (1948, p. 286). Later Skinner wrote "They were
both wrong. They should have said 'an act of love'"
(1980, p. 132). (Note: Technical terms are introduced in
brackets and defined in the Appendix [see also Catania,
1992].)
To define love as using positive reinforcement
certainly seems reasonable, but cash register operators
{reinforce} shopper's affiliation with goods, yet
register operators are not ordinarily described as loving
shoppers. Furthermore, although positive reinforcement
characterizes love, {negative reinforcement} may be
involved as in helping a loved-one escape from a burning
building.
In _Science and Human Behavior_, we find that "love
might be analyzed as the mutual _tendency_ of two
individuals to reinforce each other, where the
reinforcement may or may not be sexual" (italics added,
p. 310). Here the term love is being used as a behavioral
disposition _not_ as an inner cause. Such a disposition
means only that a person "in love" has an "increased
tendency to aid, favor, be with, and caress and a lowered
tendency to injure in any way. . . . By describing
behavior as fearful, affectionate, timid, and so on, we
are not led to look for _things_ [inside] called emotions"
(Skinner, 1953, p. 162).
Although behavioral dispositions involving mutual
reinforcement of affiliation characterize lovers, they
may also characterize relations between prostitutes and
their clientele. Moreover, love, unfortunately, need not
be mutual.
Although Skinner's system is very useful, the
interpretations described above can be improved. Foa and
Foa (1980) describe a basic problem with Skinner's
interpretations of love:
The assumption that all exchanges follow the
economic rule of loss and gain fits well with the
Skinnerian notion that any event which increases the
frequency of emitting a given behavior is a
reinforcement, and any event which decreases it is a
punishment. The enquiry into _what_ is exchanged was
largely disregarded [by learning theorists]. (p.
78).
The kinds of {reinforcers} exchanged between two
persons, the kinds of behaviors reinforced, and the role
relations between these persons is critical to
understanding romantic love and differentiating it from
other relations such as parental love or mere liking.
The Scarce and Idiosyncratic Approach
to Creating Romantic Love
Suppose that Jack and Jill worked in the same office
and that Jack liked Jill. Suppose that Jack wanted a
description of what he could do to make Jill love him and
that I knew that Jack was without evil intent. Also
suppose that Jack talks, walks, dresses, etc. in an
appealing manner. What effective advice might Jack
receive?
Given the _attachment_ component of the Love Scale,
Jack should make stimulation from his body and behavior
{discriminative} for Jill's orienting, approach, and
other affiliative behavior. This in turn requires that
Jack discover what and when certain stimuli are
reinforcing for Jill.
_Diagnosing Reinforcers_
In the following sections, food is used to
illustrate direct and indirect methods for diagnosing
reinforcers.
_The Direct Method:_
_The Experiment_
Deprivation is one well-known operation for making
events reinforcing. Jack could verify the reinforcing
value of food, under conditions of food deprivation, by
only permitting Jill to access food when she behaved in a
particular way. If this contingency increased the
frequency of similar future behavior then food, by
definition, is reinforcing.
Such an experiment is likely, of course, to be
impracticable. Not only must Jack make food contingent
on Jill's behavior but he must control other variables to
make certain that the behavior-food contingency increased
the frequency of future behavior. Also, if Jack created
the food deprivation and subsequently restricted Jill's
access to food then Jill would likely resent this.
Nevertheless, Jack may sometimes experimentally
determine what and when stimuli are reinforcers. Jill's
resentful behavior will likely depend on the meaning of,
or reasons for Jack's behavior. In other words, Jill's
resentment will likely depend on the current and past
conditions that produced Jack's experimentation.
_Indirect Methods_
Jill, of course, will eventually become food
deprived. Under food deprivation, food is not only a
reinforcer but is also a {discriminative stimulus} for
orienting towards food, approaching food, and eating
food. Under conditions of deprivation (e.g., liquid,
heat, intellectual) other stimuli (water, the sun, books,
respectively) are discriminative for orienting, approach,
and consummatory behavior. I would, therefore, urge Jack
to note which stimuli Jill "seems to go for" and the
various {disposing} operations that appear necessary for
these stimuli producing such behavior.
Alternatively, Jack might diagnose reinforcers from
what Jill says. Jill might, for example, say "I like
tuna sandwiches." Talking is behaving. Saying "I like X"
may be interpreted as behavior that is under the control
of a discriminative stimulus: the extent X or an aspect
of X has been or is a reinforcer (Skinner, 1974, p. 48).
But I would not advise Jack, therefore, indiscriminately
to use tuna sandwiches as reinforcers. Besides the
posibility of lying (see Skinner, 1957), such
"expressions do not refer to instances of reinforcement
but rather to a general susceptibility or lack of it"
(Skinner, 1974, p. 48). That is, Jill may say "I like
tuna sandwiches" because the sandwiches have been
reinforcers in some situations (e.g., during lunch or on
a picnic) and for some behavior (looking, approaching,
and eating) but not in every situation and for every
behavior. Everyday language is often imprecise. On the
other hand, if Jack overheard Jill saying "I like eating
tuna sandwiches on Friday afternoons," Jack might behave
more effectively.
Indirect diagnostic approaches do not require
intervention. Consequently, Jill is unlikely to resent
Jack's conducting a diagnosis. Indeed, when Jack
eventually provides reinforcers Jill may call Jack a
"mind reader" when Jack was merely carefully observing
Jill's behavior and making plausible guesses about the
past and present circumstances that control her behavior.
_Creating Discriminative Stimuli for_
_Affiliation by Reinforcing Affiliation_
It is important to distinquish between two classes
of reinforcers: (1) those that seem to work for everyone
and are abundant in a culture and (2) those that seem to
work for only one or a few people and are scarce. The
next sections discuss these classes of reinforcers in the
context of reinforcing affiliation.
_Reinforcers that Work for
_Most People and Are Abundant_
If Jack has properly diagnosed appropriate disposing
operations and reinforcers, then he could begin a
conversation with Jill on a Friday during lunch and offer
to share his tuna sandwich. Let us assume that Jill did
not bring her lunch and accepts the offer.
In principle, Jill's eating the sandwich would
increase her later affiliation given similar disposing
operations and stimuli were present. When food is again
reinforcing at the office, Jill might be likely to
affiliate with Jack. The greater the similarity of the
current stimuli and disposing operations to the original
conditions, the more likely is Jill to affiliate.
One kind of reinforcer such as food, however, will
not maintain Jill's affiliation because the disposing
operations making food reinforcing and activating
discriminative stimuli are not always in effect.
Moreover, Jack probably will not be very excited on
discovering that Jill only approaches when she is
food-deprived. Jack may complain that he is being used;
it is the food and not him that interests Jill (Seligman,
Fazio, & Zanna, 1980)!
So, Jack should contingently provide various other
kinds of reinforcers. In this way, the discriminative
functions of the stimuli he presents will best persist
because they do not depend on a single disposing
operation. Jack could provide sex, good drinks, or his
warm body, contingent on Jill's affiliation. Given such a
history, Jill should more frequently affiliate than when
Jack only provided food. Jack should also reinforce
affiliation at just about any time or place (provided
neither Jill nor others are offended). In this way,
Jack's discriminative stimulus function will additionally
be freed from various temporal and spatial variables.
It is interesting to note, that Jack's physical
features should become reinforcing independent of any
particular disposing operation. In principle they should
become {generalized reinforcers} because they have
preceded and have covaried with the presentation of a
variety of reinforcers. Jill, consequently, might view
photographs of Jack when he is unavailable even though a
photograph cannot provide the reinforcers Jack provides.
Indeed, Jill might contend that there is something
_intrinsic_ to Jack that she finds attractive;Jack might no
longer complain that he is being used.
Miller and Siegel (1972) have advocated procedures
similar to those outlined above for creating love, but
from the standpoint of Mowrer's learning theory (1960).
The strategy of rendering one's body and behavior
discriminative stimuli for affiliation and generalized
reinforcers follows from a number of learning approaches
(also see Blau, 1964). The strategy of becoming a
generalized reinforcer may work. Jack might be the most
captivating person that "ever walked into Jill's life,"
if Jill is socially unskilled or, for other reasons, Jill
cannot readily affiliate with others.
But if Jill is socially skilled and there are
alternative persons with whom to affiliate, this strategy
may fail. The wheels of industry critically depend on
people captivating others by providing goods that roll
off assembly lines or services that do not critically
depend on idiocrasies. If Jack almost exclusively
consequates Jill's affiliation with readily available
reinforcers, then she may eventually affiliate with
others who can provide them more immediately or in
greater quantity than can Jack. Contrariwise, if there
were reinforcers that Jack almost exclusively controlled
and that others were unlikely even to attempt providing,
Jack's providing such reinforcers more immediately or
more abundantly than others would not be required.
_Reinforcers that Work for
_Only One or a Few People
_and are Scarce_
To reduce affiliation with others, Jack should also
contingently provide a wide variety of reinforcers that
are idiosyncratic to Jill and others cannot readily, if
at all, provide. This is the most interesting aspect of
a behavioristic interpretation of romantic love.
The control that Jack may come to exert over Jill's
behavior, called "falling in love," usually results from
repeated affiliative sequences (see e.g., Altman &
Taylor, 1973; Levinger, 1974). In these interactions Jack
should prompt Jill's descriptions and evaluations of her
current circumstances, family, childhood, and eventually
herself. As before Jack should also observe current
variables controlling Jill's behavior.
Jack's actions may, consequently, be controlled by
whether Jill "is sensitive to certain kinds of stimuli,
whether [s]he responds to certain kinds of reinforcement,
whether at the moment [s]he exhibits certain states of
deprivation, and so on" (Skinner, 1953, p. 314). In
short, Jack ought to know or understand Jill as no one
else has!
Various classes of reinforcers are discussed below.
Every class need not be used in creating love and there
are probably classes that I have overlooked. But it
seems that scarce reinforcers of some kind are necessary
given the exclusivity of love suggested by the _attachment_
component of the Love Scale. Various aspects of the
_intimacy_ component are also addressed below.
_Solving Personal Problems_. If a complicated problem
arises in Jill's life, then Jack may be one of a few
people who can, when told the problem, readily offer
helpful advice or even specify behavior that will
terminate the problem (see Skinner's interpretation of
"having a problem," 1953, pp. 246-252). Problems are
aversive. Jack's advice can become positively reinforcing
because it covaries with the termination of {aversive
stimulation} (see Baron & Galizio, 1983).
_Predicting Personal Outcomes_. At times Jill may be
unsure of what to do in personal situations. She may,
for example, be unable to decide whether a note written
to a friend will be effective. If Jill has spoken to Jack
about this friend or Jack has interacted with this
person, Jack's confirmation (Skinner, 1957, p. 425) may
reliably precede the note's effectiveness and his dissent
may precede its failure. Jack's predictions may acquire
a reinforcing function under this circumstance (see
Perone & Baron, 1980; but also see Dinsmoor, 1983). If
Jill's behavior is changed as a result of Jack's comments
and the problem is solved, then this is merely an
instance of helping solve personal problems.
_Eliciting and {Conditioning} Sexual Behavior_. An
{eliciting stimulus}, by definition, invariably and with
short latency produces a response. Although various
stimuli--such as tactile stimulation of the
genitalia--are sexual eliciting stimuli (e.g., producing
vaginal lubrication), Jack should discover what works
best for Jill.
Jill's descriptions would, of course, be most
helpful. Jack should prompt and reinforce such
descriptions. When Jack and Jill engage in various forms
of sexual behavior, they may experimentally discover the
most effective eliciting stimuli.
Certain features of Jack's body (e.g., chest hair)
and behavior will occur just before the presentation of
established sexual eliciting stimuli (e.g., genital
stimulation). These stimuli will become eliciting
stimuli if it is additionally true that: tactile
stimulation of Jill's genitalia is more likely given the
presence of Jack's chest hair than is tactile stimulation
given the absence of Jack's chest hair. In other words,
the presence of Jack's chest hair covaries with tactile
stimulation.
Unfortunately, for Jack, to the extent other people
share Jack's physical features or use Jack's brand of
cologne these stimuli will likely also function as
conditioned eliciting stimuli. Jack should, therefore,
attempt to produce unique, sexual eliciting stimuli. Jack
and Jill may, for example, develop a secret erotic
language. Most naturally, certain idiosyncratic features
of Jack's body and behavior will covary with sexual
stimuli.
As in the case of reinforcing affiliation, I would
recommend that Jack administer the conditioned and most
effective sexual eliciting stimuli at just about any time
or place (provided neither Jill nor others are offended).
In this way, the conditioned sexual eliciting stimuli
will be freed from various temporal and spatial
variables. Jill may say that Jack "turns her on like no
one else" (see Maslow, 1970, p. 182).
_Changing the Topic_. If Jill has a problem that
remains insolvable and she _publicly_ talks about the
problem (this is traditionally called thinking out loud)
then Jack may distract Jill. Of all the people in the
world, Jack can best do this because he can specify when
and what stimuli produce behavior that is incompatible
with Jill's public (or private) problem related behavior.
Thinking about an insolvable problem is aversive;
stimulation from Jack can acquire a reinforcing function
by covarying with the termination of such aversive
behavior.
Sometimes, of course, Jill may _not at all publicly_
discuss a problem. She may, for example, have lied or
cheated and she cannot stop thinking about it. Jill need
not tell Jack that she feels guilty; changes in her
public behavior may suffice. Stimuli which ordinarily
produce Jill's talking, eating, or playing may not be
effective. The reduced frequency of such behavior may
again produce Jack's presenting stimuli that evoke
incompatible behavior. Jill may reinforce Jack's
interventions by saying, "you're just what the doctor
ordered!"
_Administering Therapy_. Alternatively, if Jack has
reinforced Jill's discussing _socially acceptable_ problems
and Jack generally has not punished Jill's blunders, Jill
may confess. She may at first hesitate because confessing
may be a conditioned {punisher} due to its having
preceded and having covaried with the presentation of
punishing stimuli.
Jack may initially ask Jill if she feels guilty,
fearful, or sad if he cannot describe the events
producing the changes in Jill's public behavior. Jill may
not be able to do this either (see Skinner's
interpretation of repression [1953])! Jack may prompt
Jill to "get the problem off her chest."
Suppose that Jill had stolen money from her sister
and had neither been caught nor had confessed. Also
suppose that Jill had just attended a movie in which a
similar action was depicted and it is the anniversary of
her sister's death. The movie may produce {respondent}
behavior which alters Jill's characteristic {operant}
behavior. The movie together with the behavior it has
produced may result in Jill saying that she feels guilty
and fearful.
More specifically, Jill's privately visualizing her
theft and talking about it may be interpreted as
producing conditioned {aversive stimulation}. To
eliminate the aversiveness of the stimulation from such
behavior Jack should become a "nonpunishing audience"
(Skinner, 1953, p. 370). That is, he should evoke Jill's
visual and verbal behavior without administering
additional aversive stimulation. In this way, he will
have introduced an {extinction procedure} (see Skinner,
1953, pp. 370-371; Stampfl, 1975).
Because a person or "self" is not merely a body but
is also characterized by certain behavioral patterns
(Keller & Schoenfeld, 1950, p. 369), Jill may say that
she "feels like a new person" or has "a new self" because
personally aversive behavior such as muscle tension and
pain have been eliminated (also see, Maslow, 1970, p.
185). Because public confession to Jack eliminated her
guilt, she may describe Jack as a "life saver." Jack's
status as a positive reinforcer may be enhanced because
his presence has again covaried with the termination of
aversive stimulation.
If Jill currently lives among people who repeatedly
_speak_ of sin, sinners, and punishment, however, this
might counteract Jack's work. In this case, Jack might
instead attempt "integrity therapy." Mowrer saw the
problem of guilt in this way:
Guilt is the fear a person feels _after_ having
committed an act which is disapproved by the
significant others in his life, before the act is
detected or confessed. Guilt, in short, is the fear
of being found out and punished . . . . And it
persists (i.e., does not extinguish) for precisely
the reason that in human society the mere passage of
time does not reduce culpability. Under the
circumstances specified, the original act, is
moreover, _compounded by deception_, which becomes an
ongoing "sin" which was not merely committed _then_
but is still being practiced and perpetuated, here
and now. (1964, p. 226)
As an integrity therapist Jack might not only
encourage Jill's imagining and describing her theft but
also advise Jill to confess to other significant people
in her life, make restitution, and behave better. If
Jill were a theist, Jack might also recommend that she
confess to God and seek forgiveness--_after_ she has
behaved honestly and fairly with mortals on earth.
Integrity therapy may be particularly effective if
Jill's history involved the "right" sequence: 1.
inappropriate behavior; 2. failure to confess
inappropriate behavior to significant others; 3.
confession to significant others and statements of intent
to do better; 4. description of inappropriate behavior,
administration or specification of appropriate punishment
by significant others; and 5. with the completion of
punishment, the inappropriate behavior is never (or
disparagingly) discussed by significant others and
reinforcement of affiliation with significant others is,
for a brief period, followed with particularly effective
reinforcers.
Step 5, however, may be absent. Jill's significant
others may have often cruelly discussed Jill's
inappropriate behavior long after Jill had repented and
suffered appropriate punishment. Denny (1976) contends
that a pervasive "free floating" anxiety may develop in
the following way:
A young child may have been severely scolded or
punished by [her] father, and after a passage of
time, i.e., after beginning to relax, the child may
approach the father and be met by a gruff,
anxiety-prevoking retort, "What in the hell do you
want, kid?" If this consequence of events were to
happen a number of times the clear possibility
exists for fear [responses] to be conditioned to
relaxation-produced stimuli. In consequence, every
time our hypothetical individual begins to feel calm
or relaxed, s[he] begins to feel anxious. (p. 319)
If Jill were raised in this way then perhaps Jack
should only solicit her confession and her promise to do
better. Indeed, in a discussion of restitution Jack might
mention that Jill has paid sufficiently in guilty
behavior for stealing the money and keeping it secret for
many years. Jack should not discuss Jill's inappropriate
behavior again. Jill may come to no longer respond
guiltily in Jack's presence, following confession and
restitution. If Jill lives with unforgiving people, then
Jack should help her find new associates.
_Prompting and Maintaining Nostalgic Responses_.
Because he is an expert about Jill and has extensively
interacted with her, Jack may prompt nostalgic behavior.
Only Jack, for example, may know that mentioning "Mr. and
Mrs. B's apartment" will elicit "warm," reinforcing
respondents down Jill's spine. Moreover, as time passes
Jill's ability to describe such events without additional
prompting may diminish. Jack's providing such scarce and
idiosyncratic prompts may be particularly reinforcing.
Dorthy Ogrizovich remarried after her first marriage had
ended in divorce. She noted:
Memories are the scrapbook of a life. Without them,
you have given up a piece of yourself. I make this
point only to stress that when couples are
considering divorce, they should also be aware of
this subtle loss, which can be as painful as those
that are so often publicized. . . . The wages of
divorce or an untimely death of one's partner are,
unfortunately, the same. They represent the loss of
an intangible treasure: shared memories. (1986, p.
9E)
_Can and Will Affiliation with Others Be Reinforced?_
The previous section specified what Jack should do
if he wishes Jill to love him. Before continuing, it is
important briefly to address whether Jack is capable and
motivated to follow these suggestions.
_Capability_
Capabilities are usually conceptualized as inner
causes, but they may more simply be names for behavior
that has been under appropriate environmental control but
the stimuli and disposing operations that control the
behavior are now absent.
We may ask whether Jack can behave in ways that
reinforce Jill's behavior. If Jill enjoys tennis, can
Jack play tennis? If Jill enjoys political discussion,
can Jack appropriately discuss politics? Many of the
repertoires that Jack may need are likely to be quite
complex. If Jack is without the appropriate repertoires
then it may be difficult for his behavior to come rapidly
under appropriate stimulus control. Even if Jack works
hard to acquire appropriate behavior, he may feel untrue
to his "self" because his new behavior is not under
strong discriminative stimulus control.
Beside such obviously important capabilities as
responding appropriately to English, listening carefully,
being considerate, etc., there is patience which may be
interpreted as continuing to engage in behavior even
though reinforcement is intermittent or delayed. This
capability is particularly important because Jack's
romantic overtures may not be regularly or immediately
reciprocated.
Of greater importance is trust which may be
interpreted as permitting others to control strong
reinforcers or punishers. If Jack, for example, is
initially to evoke Jill's confessions then it is
important that Jill in some way control strong
reinforcers or punishers with respect to Jack, for
otherwise she will be in a vulnerable position. Jack's
disclosure to Jill of inappropriate behavior might
suffice (see e.g., Derlega & Chaikin's [1975] discussion
of the reciprocation of self-disclosure).
Being forgiving is also important as are conflict
resolution skills (see e.g., Jacobsen & Margolin, 1979).
If Jack were fortunate, these capabilities were acquired
when he interacted with members of his immediate family.
_Motivation_
Motives, like capabilities, are usually thought to
be inner causes. Motives supposedly activate and direct
behavior. Motives, of course, are not necessary for
understanding behavior. Although it is true that stealing
food can be plausibly explained by appealing to a
robber's hunger, the theft can as plausibly be explained
by the robber's having successfully stolen before, the
robber's being without food for days and now being
without money, the food smelling delicious, etc. Consider
how changes in behavior that supposedly reflect changes
in motivation may be understood environmentally.
_Evolving Motivation_. In the beginning, Jill may have
provided stimuli that produced Jack's orienting and
listening behavior. Even if Jill might have just moved
into Jack's neighborhood, she may present stimuli similar
to those presented by _others_ that have covaried with
Jack's orienting, approach, and other affiliative
behavior being reinforced _by others_. Such affiliation
producing stimuli may include anatomical features, name,
professional title, and behavior, including the way she
talks, walks, and dresses; and, of course, what she says.
Statements of agreement and liking may be
particularly effective discriminative stimuli producing
affiliation _if_ in the past interpersonal agreement and
positive evaluation have covaried with the reinforcement
of affiliation (Hill, 1968). Of course, some persons may
insincerely use discriminative stimuli and produce
behavior but not provide reinforcement (see Jones and
Wortman's [1973] discussion of ingratiation and Hake and
Olvera's [1978, p. 215] behavioristic interpretation).
There is, also, the possibility that Jack might
approach Jill because he has been instructed to do so.
Instructions may be considered a special class of
discriminative stimuli (see Baron & Galizio, 1983;
Skinner, 1957; Winokur, 1976). There is, additionally,
the possibility of delayed imitation: Jack might have
seen Jill reinforce others' affiliation (Deguchi, 1984).
Most importantly, given the _caring_ component of the
Love Scale, Jack's affiliating, listening, caressing, and
other loving behavior with respect to Jill will increase
in frequency if Jill reinforces this behavior.
_Instant Motivation_. At the beginning of the previous
section I depicted Jack's affiliation with Jill to be an
instance of {stimulus generalization}. That is, his
initial affiliation was not due to Jill having reinforced
his affiliation but due to his affiliation _with others_
having been reinforced _by others_.
I did not, however, discuss the kinds of reinforcers
these others may have provided. If the reinforcers were
all of one kind, for example food, then the stimuli that
Jill provides may only produce Jack's affiliation if Jack
were food deprived. But suppose the reinforcers that
others provided were of various kinds, perhaps even some
were scarce and idiosyncratic to Jack. If this were
true, there might have been "love at first sight" (see
Keller & Schoenfeld, 1950, pp. 375-376).
Some may question whether such a phenomenon exists
but it is plausible (see Tennov's [1979] discussion of
limerence which is only partially interpreted here). Jack
may yearn to look at and affiliate with Jill, yet he may
also respond anxiously because the stimulus control may
not be mutual, and under these social circumstances
Jack's affiliation covaried with the presentation of
aversive stimuli i.e., his "expectations were dashed!"
_Choice_. Although the term "choice" was not used
above, choice situations are ubiquitous. Choice is
usually thought to reflect some invisible, internal
process that determines which of two or more incompatible
responses occur. Choice, however, can more simply denote
the occurence of one of two or more incompatible
responses. Such choice is determined, for example, by
the discriminative stimuli present that control each
incompatible response, the disposing operations that are
in place and the {schedules of reinforcement}.
As Jack considers my advice he may note that if he
alternatively mastered, for example, the stock market
then he might earn so much money that he could attract
many desirable women. Whereas, if he followed my advice
and produced all sorts of events that functioned as
reinforcers exclusively for Jill who else could
appreciate his highly specialized knowledge and skills
should Jill reject him, fall sick, or die? Jack faces a
choice endemic to mass culture.
I might tell Jack that Jill is unlikely immediately
to find someone better. This is because Jack provides a
variety of idiosyncratic, scarce reinforcers contingent
on Jill's affiliation. Although Jack might be able to
attract a number of woman with "all the things that money
can buy," money cannot maintain their continuing
affiliation (unless they are socially unskilled) as
effectively as can providing a variety of idiosyncratic,
scarce reinforcers.
Of course, if Jill can eventually provide a wide
variety of reinforcers, particularly idiosyncratic,
scarce reinforcers, then Jack may increasingly affiliate
with Jill. This will be easiest if Jill's capabilities
and behavioral dispositions are appropriate to Jack's,
for then the major issue will not be what each does for
each other but coordinating reinforcing behavior (see
Kelley, 1979; Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). Not only will
Jack come to feel true to his "self," but he may come to
see "... in his own particular Jill charms and
perfections to the enchantment of which we stolid
onlookers are stone-cold" (James, 1914, p. 266). Jack's
caring for Jill may become a "labor of love." His loving
behavior may have become {automatically reinforcing} by
having preceded and covarying with Jill's providing
reinforcers.
_Limitations_
The theory offered here is, in part, limited because
many advanced behavioristic principles and findings
relevant to love are inappropriate for an introductory
essay. The theory is in many other ways limited. For
example, besides Andreaus's and Rubin's definitions of
romantic love, there are many other conceptions (Lee,
1988). Most interesting is Davis and Todd's (1982)
paradigm case formulation for defining love and other
fuzzy concepts. Some other commonly mentioned
limitations are addressed below.
_Isn't There Too Much_
_Calculation and Control?_
As depicted here, Jack is unlikely to be initially
conditioning Jill's affectionate behavior without
calculation. Instead, contrary to Skinner's assertion
that "we do not act to change behavior" (Skinner, 1980,
p. 132) when in love, Jack is likely to be _thinking_ about
just that! His behavior has been depicted as being
controlled, in part, by the instructions I have provided.
Nevertheless, in principle, Jack could behave with
less calculation, if he had "naturally" received training
in loving others by having been raised in a loving
family. Moreover, to the extent that Jack primarily
controls Jill's behavior through positive reinforcement
the control that he is exerting may not be, at least
initially, terribly conspicuous:
The effects [of positive reinforcement] are not as
easily recognized as those of aversive contingencies
because they tend to be deferred, and applications
have therefore been delayed . . . . (Skinner, 1971,
p. 33)
_What About Fantasy?
From the standpoint of radical behaviorism fantasy
may be understood by recalling that hearing, seeing,
smelling, etc. are private behavior (Skinner, 1953, pp.
257-282). Jill's physical presence may be interpreted to
produce Jack's seeing Jill. The private stimuli produced
by seeing Jill may become reinforcing because they have
preceded and covaried with Jill's providing
reinforcement. Seeing may, consequently, occur when
relevant disposing operations are in effect:
It is characteristic of men under strong sexual
deprivation, not only that they indulge in sexual
behavior as soon as an occasion presents itself or
concern themselves with the production or enjoyment
of sexual art or engage in sexual self-stimulation,
but that they also see sexual objects or activities
in the absence of relevant stimuli. . . . A . . .
response which can be made when the appropriate
stimulus is absent has certain advantages. It does
not require the sometimes troublesome precurrent
behavior which generates an external stimulus, and
it can occur when such behavior is impossible--as
when we daydream of a lost love or an opportunity
which is wholly out of the question. (Skinner, 1953,
p. 272).
_If Love Primarily Involves_
_Positive Reinforcement, How_
_Can This Theory Explain_
_Emotional Ambivalence?_
Assume that Jack and Jill love each other. Emotional
ambivalence can characterize Jack's behavior with respect
to Jill because Jill may administer tremendous punishment
by threatening or actually rapidly withdrawing the
idiosyncratic reinforcers that she uniquely provides.
Moreover, if Jack has confessed punishable behavior, Jill
may threaten to reveal his transgressions. Clearly the
social interaction that produces love may also produce
strong avoidance or "hate."
If Jill can more effectively control Jack's behavior
than Jack does Jill's, Jill may force Jack to engage in
punishing behavior. It has been noted that "in any
sentimental relation the one who cares less can exploit
the one who cares more" (Ross, 1920, p. 136). Jack may
continue to affiliate with Jill because of the schedule
of reinforced affiliation, the inavailability of
alternative sources of reinforcement, etc. It is possible
that Jack may discover new idiosyncratic, sources of
reinforcement that control Jill's behavior. It is also
possible that Jill might come to reinforce so little of
Jack's affiliation that eventually his affiliation will
cease (see Homans' [1974] discussion of power).
_How Can Romance Fade Over_
_Time Even Though Reinforcement_
_Is Still Forthcoming?_
Romantic love has been described as a race against
time. Why does love diminish even though reinforcement
is forthcoming?
_Reductions in the Quality and Quantity of
Reinforcement_. In his first book on happiness, Alan
Watts noted that "where the roses . . . bloom in their
glory there will certainly be a bed of manure" (1940, p.
61). The provision of a variety of idiosyncratic, scarce
reinforcers at a high rate critically depends on various
disposing operations being in effect and the person
susceptible to love being incapable of responding
effectively.
Suppose that Jill had never before fallen
romantically in love. In this case there may be a variety
of unresolved personal problems that have _accumulated
over time_. Once Jack offers advice that helps solve these
problems or more directly eliminates such problems,
powerful bases of reinforcement are eliminated.
For example, if Jill not only felt guilty about
stealing money from her sister but additionally described
herself to be sexually unappealing, Jack's prompting
Jill's confession etc. might eliminate Jill's guilt, and
Jill's body functioning as an erotic eliciting stimulus
would likely terminate her disparaging remarks about her
sex appeal. Jill might occasionally feel guilty about her
theft or anxious about her sex appeal, but the aversive
features of these "problems" should be less than if Jill
had never interacted with Jack.
Thus, as Jack and Jill continue interacting they
will reach a point at which they cannot reinforce
affiliation at ever increasing rates particularly with
idiosyncratic, scarce reinforcers. The tendency to
affiliate may, therefore, begin to decrease as a greater
proportion of the reinforcers used are available from
others.
Indeed, even common reinforcers may less frequently
be forthcoming. For example, if Jack and Jill marry there
will be less competition for each other's affection. The
complex pattern of social stimulation called "low
competition" may serve as a disposing operation that
reduces mutual reinforcement of affiliation. Moreover,
Jack and Jill will likely come to share the same "home
sweet home." Consequently there will be less
reinforcement of affiliation than when they lived
separately because each will, to some extent, affiliate
with the other when returning home.
Automatic reinforcement may also be involved in
reducing the use of common reinforcers. The conditioned
properties of stimuli typically do not change as rapidly
as the contingencies of reinforcement. Behavior that is
automatically reinforcing may, therefore, persist for
some time in the absence of exogenous reinforcement.
This may produce a social advantage. For example, Jill
may have reinforced, at a high rate, Jack's preparing
lunches but the reinforcement rate declined after Jack's
behavior became automaticallly reinforcing. Jill may,
consequently, come to reinforce lunch preparation less
frequently than before.
_Weakening Conditioned Stimulation From Jack_. Aspects
of Jack's body or behavior may have initially been
reinforcing and sexually arousing for Jill. It is
likely, for example, that during the early stages of
their romance, the probability of sexual stimulation
given the presence of Jack's hairy chest was high whereas
the probability of sexual stimulation given its absence
was quite low. Indeed, if Jack sexually stimulated Jill
at various times and in various settings, then the
conditioned reinforcing and eliciting functions of Jack's
hairy chest should hold over time and place.
Contrariwise, as Jill affiliates more and more with
Jack the covariation between his hairy chest and more
effective sexual stimulation, such as tactile stimulation
of her genitalia, will likely diminish. This will easily
happen if Jack and Jill share the same bedroom where
Jack's hairy chest will be exposed but tactile genital
stimulation will less often occur than in early stages of
their romance. This change, according to the contingency
account of conditioning (see Rescorla, 1967), will weaken
the conditioned reinforcing and eliciting functions of
Jack's hairy chest.
Moreover, sexual behavior may eventually be confined
to a particular time (before going to sleep) and place
(the bedroom, particularly if there are children) which
should further diminish Jack's hairy chest functioning as
a conditioned stimulus over time and place. Also, after
Jill's working hard all day, Jack's tactile sexual
stimulation of Jill may be less effective (see Tennov,
1977, pp. 171-175) than when they first dated.
There is the related matter of the effectiveness of
the unconditioned stimulation, for example, tactile
stimulation of the genitalia. There may be an optimal
interval of sexual inactivity for maximizing the
reinforcing and eliciting functions.
_Fading Joy and Happiness_. "Joy" and "happiness" may
be considered verbal responses that are _complexly_
controlled by rapid _increases_ in the level of
reinforcement, _not the particular level of reinforcement_.
More details for this interpretation can be found in
Rachlin's (1980, Chap. 3) provocative behavioristic
analysis. Because Jack and Jill cannot perpetually
provide positive transitions in mutual levels of
reinforcement, the tendency to describe each other as
current sources of joy and happiness will likely
diminish.
SO WHAT'S NEW?
This section compares certain general
characteristics of the present approach with traditional
approaches to attraction and affection. Before proceeding
further, however, it is useful to summarize the
interpretation or theory of romantic love offered here in
the form of a definition.
In the case of Jack and Jill, love is a name for a
relation in which Jill's orienting, approach, and other
affiliative behavior is followed by a wide variety of
(mostly positive) reinforcers, particularly ones that are
idiosyncratic to Jill that cannot at all or readily be
provided by others. Moreover, except possibly for sexual
reinforcers, Jack has not directly created the disposing
operations which render the stimuli that he provides
reinforcing (e.g., Jack has not attempted to make Jill
confess by making her feel guilty). As a consequence,
Jill's behavior is controlled by many discriminative, and
reinforcing stimuli that are unique to Jack. (Because
stimuli that are reinforcers often have an eliciting
function, elicitation by implication is involved.)
It is important to note that this definition and
many facets of the behavioristic interpretation detailed
above are extensions of Gewirtz's systematic and
provocative application of behaviorism to understanding
love between a child and a principal caretaker (see
especially, Gewirtz's [1972] discussion of "attachment"
relations).
_Structure, Acquisition, and History_
In social psychological studies of attraction and
relationships, researchers are most often concerned with
determining structure (often as a means for inferring
inner causes of behavior). A researcher may arrange
various social stimuli and measure various orienting,
verbal, or affiliative behavior classes to identify the
forms of social stimuli and behavior that covary and the
form of the covariation. Research concerned with
covariation between responses, or stages of relationship
development are clearly structural.
A behavioristic interpretation of human behavior
must also consider structure. In commenting on Freud's
work, for example, Skinner noted, "We may quarrel with
any analysis which appeals to a self or personality as an
inner determiner of action, but the facts which have been
represented with such devices cannot be ignored" (1953,
p. 284). Many behaviorists, unfortunately, have
chauvinistically rejected entire cognitive social
psychological analyses. Consequently, they have failed to
appreciate the importance of the classes of stimuli,
responses, and their interrelations that cognitive social
psychologists have isolated (see Catania, 1973; Wilcox &
Katz, 1982). The present interpretation for example,
depends very heavily on Rubin's structural research
concerning the Romantic Love Scale.
But the present interpretation is also concerned
with suggesting what may have been done in the world
beyond the laboratory to produce structure. It attempts
to answer the question "Why is stimulus of form X related
to behavior of form Y in such and such a way" by
appealing to a conditioning history (see Skinner, 1953,
p. 302). It is less likely, therefore, to confuse basic
with culturally determined structures and processes (see
Gergen, 1980; Greenfield, 1973) than traditional
ahistorical exchange theories (see e.g., Kelley &
Thibaut, 1978, pp. 321-323).
A major weakness of any behavioristic interpretation
of behavior is reference to _unseen_, _invented_
reinforcement histories. Behavioristic research rarely
makes front page headlines, but each time a behavioristic
experiment involving conditioning is conducted, _history
is made_. Although behaviorists have not studied love, as
defined above, or close relationships, as defined by
Kelley et al. (1983), behaviorists have studied aspects
of such relations.
Hake and Schmid (1981), for example, studied the
acquisition and maintenance of trust. Moreover, these
studies are not considered to be analogues or
simulations; the laboratory is in the _real world_. By
learning, for example, how to create history in a
laboratory environment so that persons learn to share or
trust, perhaps even given a history of competition,
interpretations of creating or recreating love in the
world beyond the laboratory are likely to be more valid.
_The Unit of Analysis and the Idiosyncratic_
In traditional research, responses are typically
averaged across organisms or interacting organisms,
depending on the unit of analysis. Consequently, one
cannot be sure how the regularities apply to particular
units.
The present interpretation, however, is
fundamentally concerned with the individual organism or
the individual dyad. The interpretations are an extension
of research concerned with specifying the operations that
control the behavior of individual organisms and dyads.
In the study of trust, for example, the data is presented
on a session-by-session basis for each participant and
dyad. Moreover, in this research tradition, procedures
must often be modified to the idiosyncratic
characteristics of an organism or dyad.
In the present interpretation the role of
idiosyncratic factors--particularly idiosyncratic
reinforcers--is critical to understanding love (and
differentiating it from other forms of affection, see
Dermer [1985]). Researchers concerned with attraction and
close relationships, however, have been slow to recognize
the importance of idiosyncratic reinforcers. For example,
before reviewing the literature on attraction and love
Berscheid and Walster noted:
Since it is so difficult to calculate what one
individual at one specific point in time will find
rewarding or punishing, interpersonal attraction
researchers have . . . settled on a more realistic
goal: to learn which behaviors and events most
people, most of the time, find rewarding. (1978, p.
26)
Later, however, in commenting on the reinforcement
approach and social exchange theories Berscheid notes:
A pellet is likely to be [a] reward to a rat who
has not eaten for several days, but what is a
reward or a cost is not so easily determined for
humans in social situations. As a consequence,
not only has recent theorizing moved toward
taking an interactive approach, but it also has
moved toward careful consideration of the meaning
and value of stimulus events to the individual.
(1985, p. 439)
Theorists are gradually recognizing the importance
of idiosyncratic aspects of relations to understanding
love (see Altman and Taylor, 1973; Blau, 1964; Foa & Foa,
1980; Rosenblatt, 1977). But reliance on between-subject
or dyad research methods may make it particularly
difficult to study the meaning and value of events "to
the individual." This, of course, is an old problem:
The modern methodologist, no less than his
predecessors throughout the history of psychological
science, fails to see the peculiar need in
psychology for the prediction of the individual
event. Of the two kinds of prediction appropriate
to psychology--the actuarial and the individual--the
former only, up to now, has received the attention
it deserves. (Allport, 1940, p. 16)
Allport noted that actuarial prediction was useful for
certain purposes, but he nevertheless felt that
psychology was obligated to understand the individual
case.
Lewin commented on the same problem and outlined a
solution:
In the time of the Greeks, geometry shifted from a
"clasificatory" method (which groups geometric fig
ures according to "similarities") to a "construc
tive" or "genetic" method (which groups figures
according to the way, they can be produced or
derived from each other). Ever since, the "genetic
definition" has dominated mathematics. In physics,
a similar development occurred at the time of Galileo
. . . . Biology tried to take a major step in this
direction when the system of Linnee was superseded
by Darwin. (1951, p. 61)
Lewin did not comment on Darwin's describing a plausible
historical process responsible for speciation, but Lewin
did note that one can use basic "elements" of psychology
to bridge the gap "between generalities and specifics,
between laws and individual differences" (p. 61). But of
course, this is what I have attempted to do in providing
a behavioristic interpretation of Jack and Jill's
romance.
CONCLUSION
There are many reasons for studying love; the
methods and theories will vary accordingly. If one's
concern, however, is with helping people create love or
rekindle love then I suspect a behavioristic
interpretation may be particularly useful because
behaviorists most often use individual subjects as the
unit for isolating principles. Moreover, in applied
behavioristic research _interpretations are routinely
tested with respect to individual persons_. Few other
approaches in psychology have used the prediction and
control of the behavior of the individual as a validity
test. Even as passionate a cognitive psychologist as
Meehl, who has carefully considered actuarial versus
clinical prediction, deems behavior modification to be
one of five noble traditions in clinical psychology "that
have permanent merit and will still be with us 50 or 100
years from now" because of its "remarkable technological
power" (1978, p. 817). Contrariwise, Gergen (1980) notes
that "commitment to any given theory within the social
sciences is perilous" because, in part, "any given theory
dismisses much that could be relevant to making any given
decision, and renders one insensitive to entire domains
of potentially significant experience" (p. 277).
In this interpretation I have provided a theoretical
integration without proliferating concepts. Moreover, I
believe that future behavioristic interpretations will be
enhanced by research concerned with _conditioning_ various
patterns of human interaction (see e.g., Hake & Olvera,
1978) and verbal behavior. In so doing, future
interpretations will better help understanding and
creating romantic love.
References
Allport, G. W. (1940). The psychologist's frame of
reference. _Psychological Bulletin_, _37_, 1-28.
Allport, G. W. (1969). The historical background of
social psychology. In G. Lindsey & E. Aronson (Eds.),
_The handbook of social psychology_ (2nd ed., pp. 1-80).
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). _Social penetration:
The development of interpersonal relationships_. New
York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Baron, A., & Galizio, M. (1983). Instructional control
of human operant behavior. _The Psychological Record_,
_33_, 495-520.
Berscheid, E. (1983). Emotion. In H. H. Kelley, E.
Berscheid, A . Christensen, J. H. Harvey, T. L.
Huston, G. Levinger, E. McClintock, L. T. Peplau, & D.
Peterson (Eds.), _Close relationships_ (pp. 110-168). New
York, NY: Freeman.
Berscheid, E. (1985). Interpersonal attraction. In G.
Lindzey & E. Aronson, (Eds.), _Handbook of social
psychology: Vol. 2._ (3rd ed., pp. 413-484). New York,
NY: Random House.
Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1978). _Interpersonal
attraction_ (2nd, ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Blau, P. M. (1964). _Exchange and power in social life_.
New York, NY: Wiley.
Capellanus, A. (1959) _The art of courtly love_. (J. J.
Parry Trans.). New York, NY: Fredrick Ungar.
Catania, A. C. (1973). The psychologies of structure,
function, and development. _American Psychologist_, _28_,
434-443.
Catania, A. C. (1992). _Learning_ (3rd ed.). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Day, W. F. (1969). Radical behaviorism in reconciliation
with phenomenology. _Journal of the Experimental
Analysis of Behavior_, _12_, 315-328.
Davis, K. E., & Todd, M. J. (1982). Friendship and love
relationships. In K. E. Davis & T. O. Mitchell,
(Eds.), _Advances in descriptive psychology: Vol. 2._
(pp. 79-122). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Deguchi, H. (1984). Observational learning from a
radical-behavioristic viewpoint. _The Behavior Analyst_,
_7_, 83-95.
Denny, M. R. (1976). Post-aversive relief and relaxation
and their implications for behavior therapy. _Journal
of Behaviour Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry_, _7_,
315-321.
Derlega, V. J., & Chaikin, A. L. (1975). _Sharing
intimacy_. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Dermer, M., & Pyszczynski, T. A. (1978). The effects of
erotica upon men's loving and liking responses for
women they love. _Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology_, _36_, 1302-1309.
Dermer, M. L. (1985). A radical behaviorist looks at
love and other affectionate behavior. Paper presented
at the meeting of the Association for Behavior
Analysis, Columbus, OH.
Dinsmoor, J.A. (1983). Observing and conditioned
reinforcement. _The Behavioral and Brain Sciences_, _6_,
693-728.
Foa, E. B., & Foa, U. G. (1980). Resource theory:
Interpersonal behavior as exchange. In K. J. Gergen,
M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), _Social
exchange: Advances in theory and research_ (pp. 77-94).
New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Gergen, K. J. (1980). Exchange theory: The transient
and the enduring. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, &
R. H. Willis (Eds.), _Social Exchange: Advances in
Theory and Research_ (pp. 261-280). New York, NY:
Plenum.
Gewirtz, J. L. (1972). Attachment, dependence, and a
distinction in terms of stimulus control. In J. L.
Gewirtz (Ed.), _Attachment and dependency_ (pp. 139-177).
Washington, DC: V. H. Winston & Sons.
Greenfield, S. M. (1973). Part I. Love: Some
reflections by a social anthropologist. Part II. On
the critique of romantic love: Some sociological
consequences of proposed alternatives. In M. E. Curtin
(Ed.). _Symposium on love_ (pp. 37-67) New York, NY:
Behavioral Publications.
Hake, D. F., & Olvera, D. (1978). Cooperation,
competition, and related social phenomena. In A. C.
Catania & T. A. Brigham (Eds.), _Handbook of applied
behavior analysis_ (pp. 208-245). New York, NY:
Irvington.
Hake, D. F., & Schmid, T. L. (1981). Acquisition and
maintenance of trusting behavior. _Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior_, _35_, 109-124.
Hill, W. F. (1968). Sources of evaluative reinforcement.
_Psychological Bulletin_, 1968, _69_, 132-146.
Homans, G. C. (1967). The nature of social science. New
York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.
Homans, G. C. (1974). _Social behavior_. New York, NY:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Jacobson, N. S. & Margolin, G. (1979). _Marital therapy_.
New York, NY: Brunner-Mazel.
James, W. (1914). Talks to teachers on psychology: And
to students on some of life's ideals. New York, NY:
Henry Holt.
Jones, E. E., & Wortman, C. (1973). _Ingratiation an
attributional approach_. Morristown, NJ: General
Learning Press.
Kelley, H. H. (1979). _Personal relationships: Their
structures and processes_. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Kelley, H. H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J.
H., Huston, T. L., Levinger, G., McClintock, E.,
Peplau, L. A., & Peterson, D. R. (1983). Analyzing
close relationships. In Kelley et al. (Eds.), _Close
relationships_ (pp. 20-67). New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.
Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). _Interpersonal
relations_. New York, NY: Wiley.
Keller, F. S., & Schoenfeld, W. N. (1950). _Principles of
psychology_. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Lee, J. A. (1988). Love-styles. In R. J. Sternberg & M.
J. Barnes (Eds.), _The psychology of love_ (pp. 38-67).
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Levinger, G. (1974). A three-level approach to
attraction: Toward an understanding of pair
relatedness. In T. L. Huston (Ed.), _Foundations of
interpersonal attraction_ (pp. 99-120). New York, NY:
Academic Press.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory and learning. In D.
Cartwright (Ed.), _Field theory in social science_ (pp.
60-86). New York, NY: Harper.
Maslow, A. H. (1970). _Motivation and personality_ (2nd
ed.). New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Meehl, P. E. (1978). Theoretical risks and tabular
asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the slow progress
of soft psychology. _Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology_, _46_, 806-834.
Miller, H. L., & Siegel, P. S. (1972). _Loving: A
psychological approach_. New York, NY: Wiley.
Mowrer, O. H. (1960). _Learning theory and behavior_. New
York, NY: Wiley.
Mowrer, O. H. (1964). _The new group therapy_. New York,
NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Ogrizovich, D. (1986, July 2). A fresh start: But what
about the memories? _The Milwaukee Journal_, p. 9E.
Perone, M., & Baron, A. (1980). Reinforcement of human
observing behavior by a stimulus correlated with
extinction or increased effort. _Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior_, _34_, 239-261.
Rachlin, H. (1980). _Behaviorism in everyday life_.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Rescorla, R. A. (1967). Pavlovian conditioning and its
proper control procedures. _Psychological Review_, _74_,
71-80.
Rosenblatt, P. C. (1977). Needed research on commitment
in marriage. In G. Levinger & H. L. Rausch (Eds.),
_Close relationships_ (pp. 73-86). Amherst, MA:
University of Massachusetts Press.
Ross, E. A. (1920). _Principles of sociology_. New York,
NY: Century.
Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. _Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology_, _16_, 265-273.
Rubin, Z. (1973). _Liking and loving_. New York, NY:
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Seligman, C., Fazio, R. H., & Zanna, M. P. (1980).
Effects of salience of extrinsic rewards on liking and
loving. _Journal of Personality and Social Psychology_,
_38_, 453-460.
Skinner, B. F. (1945). The operational analysis of
psychological terms. _The Psychological Review_, _52_,
291-294.
Skinner, B. F. (1948). _Walden two_. NY: Macmillan.
Skinner, B. F. (1953). _Science and human behavior_. New
York, NY: Free Press.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). _Verbal behavior_. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Skinner, B. F. (1971). _Beyond freedom and dignity _. New
York, NY: Knopf.
Skinner, B. F. (1974). _About behaviorism_. New York, NY:
Knopf.
Skinner, B. F. (1980). _Notebooks B. F. Skinner_. New
York, NY: Prentice-Hall.
Staats, A. W. (1981). Paradigmatic behaviorism, unified
theory, unified theory construction methods, and the
Zeitgeist of separatism. _American Psychologist_, _36_,
239-256.
Stampfl, T. (1975). Implosive therapy: Staring down
your nightmares. _Psychology Today_, _8_, 66-73.
Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love.
_Psychological Review_, _93_, 119-135.
Tennov, D. (1977). _Super Self: A woman's guide to
self-management_. New York, NY: Funk & Wagnalls.
Tennov, D. (1979). _Love and Limerence: The experience
of being in love_. New York: Stein and Day.
Watts, A. W. (1940). _The meaning of happiness_. New
York, NY: Harper & Row.
Wilcox, S., & Katz, S. (1982). What Gibson isn't missing
after all: A reply to Heil. _Journal for the Theory of
Social Behaviour_,_11_, 313-317.
Winokur, S. (1976). _A primer of verbal behavior: An
operant view_. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Author Notes
Acknowledgements:
I thank my mentors: Ellen Berscheid who fostered a
scholarly interest in love, Alan Baron who generously
offered expert advice about the experimental analysis of
behavior, and Jay Moore who kindly introduced me to
radical behaviorism. Dick Malott, Diane Reddy, John
Surber and Paul Rosenblatt thoughtfully reviewed earlier
versions of this essay.
Appendix
AUTOMATIC REINFORCER: A reinforcer that is produced
automatically by a response. For example, masturbation
is automatically reinforced by orgasm.
AVERSIVE STIMULUS (STIMULATION): See NEGATIVE REINFORCER.
CONDITIONED (CONDITIONING): Changing behavior or the
function of a stimulus by using a contingency. See, for
example, EXTINCTION and DISCRIMINATIVE STIMULUS,
respectively.
CONDITIONED REINFORCER: A stimulus which has become a
reinforcer by having preceded and having covaried
with the presentation of a reinforcer.
CONTINGENT: Event Y is said to be contingent on event X,
to the extent X must first occur before Y can occur. For
operants, X is a response and Y is a reinforcing or
punishing consequence.
DISCRIMINATIVE STIMULUS: A stimulus in whose presence a
response is reinforced and in whose absence similar
responses are not reinforced or reinforced less, with the
result that these responses come to be emitted in the
presence of the stimulus but are less likely emitted when
the stimulus is absent.
DISPOSING OPERATION: An operation which controls the
extent another operation will control behavior. For
example, food deprivation controls the extent food will
function as a reinforcer.
ELICITING STIMULUS: A stimulus which invariably and with
short latency produces a response (see RESPONDENT).
EXTINCTION: For operants, discontinuing the consequence
that have maintained the behavior, for example,
eliminating the response contingent presentation of
reinforcers. For respondents, presenting the CONDITIONED
STIMULUS so that it either does not immediately precede
or covary with the eliciting stimulus.
GENERALIZED REINFORCER: A stimulus which has become a
reinforcer by having preceded and having covaried
with the presentation of many different kinds of
reinforcers.
NEGATIVE REINFORCER (NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT): See
REINFORCER.
OPERATION: Any environmental procedure or condition,
e.g., the withholding of food, or onset of a tone.
OPERANT: A class of behavior controlled by its
consequences.
POSITIVE REINFORCER (POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT): See
REINFORCER.
PUNISHER: A response contingent event that decreases the
rate similar responses are emitted. For POSITIVE
punishers, the "event" is the presentation of stimulus;
for NEGATIVE punishers, the "event" is the removal of a
stimulus. PUNISHMENT: As a name for an operation, this
term denotes the response contingent presentation of a
punisher. As a name for a behavioral process, this term
denotes the decrease in the rate of a response
attributable to the punishment operation.
RESPONDENT: The behavior controlled by eliciting stimuli.
RESPONDENT CONDITIONING: As an operation, this term
denotes arranging a neutral stimulus to immediately precede
and covary with an eliciting stimulus. Pavlov
arranged tones and food powder in this way. As a name for
a behavioral process, this term denotes the increase in
control that the neutral stimulus has over elicited
behavior because of respondent conditioning
operations. The tone, for example, came to produce
salivation because of its relation to the presentation of
food powder.
REINFORCEMENT: As a name for an operation, this term
denotes the response contingent presentation of a
reinforcer. As a name for a behavioral process, this
term denotes the increase in the rate of a response
attributable to the reinforcement operation.
REINFORCER: A response contingent event that increases
the rate similar responses are emitted. For POSITIVE
reinforcers, the "event" is the presentation of stimulus;
for NEGATIVE reinforcers, the "event" is the removal of a
stimulus.
SCHEDULE OF REINFORCEMENT: A rule which specifies which
responses are reinforced.
STIMULUS GENERALIZATION: Given that behavior has been
brought under the control of a particular stimulus, other
stimuli may come to exert similar control. The spread of
this effect is called generalization.