Development and Validation of the Romantic Love Myths Questionnaire

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to develop and validate an instrument to measure love myths among Chilean youth. Items created based on review of available literature were refined through experts’ revisions and participant focus groups. The initial questionnaire was applied to 1,538 high school and university students, aged between 14 and 24 years old. Exploratory factor analysis performed with half of the sample led to a 10-item questionnaire, grouped in two factors: idealization and love–abuse. Confirmatory factor analyses conducted with the other half of the sample corroborated this factorial structure. Reliability analyses indicated an adequate internal consistency, and correlations with dating violence and quality of relationship provide evidence on its concurrent validity. Complementary, results showed that females endorse more idealization and males love–abuse, and adolescents scored higher in both dimensions than emerging adults.

Keywords

romantic beliefs gender adolescents emerging adults dating violence

In music, literature, and art in general, romantic love has been widely portrayed through images and myths that highlight the strong, passionate, and unpredictable nature of love (Illouz, 2012). From the standpoint of social science research, one aspect of romantic relationships that has raised particular interest is the ways in which societies regulate the expression of “legitimate” sexual attraction—that is, what is considered acceptable, and what is not—and the codes of conduct involved in romantic partner selection and courtship. Such codes are usually strongly differentiated by gender, due to the social expectations about what men and women might and should do in terms of the exercise of their sexuality. These expectations are, in turn, an integral part of what is considered feminine or masculine (Schippers, 2018). However, modernization processes have also transformed personal and romantic relationships, making them more flexible in terms of the societal norms that govern them and thus redefining the socially acceptable repertoires for love and courtship (Hobbs et al., 2017).

From this perspective, in Western cultures partnerships based on romantic love are characterized by a paradox. On one hand, they are increasingly open to the redefinition of the norms establishing what is appropriate, giving individuals more leeway in choosing how, when, and who to date (Iorio, 2015; Layder, 2009) and promoting the emergence of dating “markets” (Yamada et al., 2017). On the other hand, this very same process poses the need to situate romantic relationships in a new social narrative that, while keeping in with the ideal of freedom of choice, can provide guidelines on what to expect from a “good” romantic relationship. The transformation of intimacy does not occur in a cultural vacuum, but rather, it takes place against a rich backdrop of ideas, beliefs, and expectations about what love is, how to recognize it, and how it “feels”—what the literature has identified as the beliefs about romantic love (Adamczyk & Metts, 2015).

As Illouz (2012) and Watts and Stenner (2005) have pointed out, love and sexual attraction may be timeless as human emotions, but the rules governing them are socially and culturally situated. Cubells and Calsamiglia (2015) argue that this particular conception has a set of beliefs associated to it, or what they identify as “interpretive repertoires,” understood as arrays of socially shared ideals about what love is that guides individuals’ expectations (Rodríguez-Castro, et al., 2013; Yela, 2003). These repertoires could be conceived of as institutionalized forms of intelligibility that allow individuals to make sense of a part of the world, which have a history, and which imbricate power relations. Repertoires may be multiple and varied, often contradictory and posing competing claims and dilemmas that individuals must resolve (Risman, 2018; Wetherell & Edley, 1999). But they also may contain some clearly identifiable ideas that individuals recognize as part of the common sense, regardless of whether they endorse them or not, such as stereotypes or myths. The latter are defined as stereotyped beliefs that are not necessarily backed by experience, but might have implications for behavioral outcomes (Lippman, 2015).

One important part of some commonsense beliefs associates romantic love with feelings of uncontrollable passion, which in turn could lend discursive legitimacy to obsessive behavior or mate retention strategies ranging from keeping a partner from interacting with the opposite sex, to overt jealousy and even violence, including the belief that stalking is an expression of love (based on the idea that an individual who goes to the extremes of stalking must really feel passionate for his or her love interest; Lippman, 2015). Such behavior is often regarded as proof of the existence of intense feelings, which would provide discursive justification for behavior that would be promptly identified as aggressive in other contexts but part of the valid repertoire of actions for romantic relationships for each sex (Hartwell et al., 2015; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2012; Papp et al., 2017). The literature on the subject has reported associations between the endorsement of some myths about romantic love and relationship quality (Vannier & O’Sullivan, 2016) but has also found links between the endorsement of these beliefs and the acceptance of intimate partner abuse (Franiuk et al., 2012).

For some individuals, these myths could provide legitimation for jealousy and invasive practices like checking the partner’s phone or email without his or her consent, rendering them invisible as abuse and masked as a-little-over-the-limit, yet acceptable, evidence of romantic interest. As repertoires on romantic love may be multiple, varied, and often contradictory—for instance, the expectation that males are to be more assertive and the dominant party in an (heterosexual) relationship often goes in tandem with the idea that they must be gentlemanly in courtship—the links between endorsement of myths and behavior should not be expected to be straightforward. Research suggest these links are, indeed, complex and gendered, as myths are often based on stereotypical ideas about male and female sexuality that assert that men are more sexual, dominating, and emotionally detached, whereas females must be chaste, nurturing, and emotionally responsive to the partner’s needs (Horne & Johnson, 2019). These reflect, but also help to perpetuate, power imbalances based on gender: Adams et al. (1995) have shown how the rhetoric of male dominance and power serves to camouflage and justify gendered aggression. Similarly, Towns and Adams (2000) provide evidence on how women drew on discourses of what they portray as “perfect love” (which could be caring, but also possessive) to remain silent about intimate abuse or to attempt to “change” their partner, positioning themselves as (at least partly) responsible for the aggression suffered, instead of seen it as an expression of gendered violence.

In a similar vein, more recently Franiuk et al. (2012) argue that the belief of the existence of a soulmate is associated with a higher level of acceptance of intimate partner abuse in adults, although this association would be mediated by the time it takes one person to decide whether a potential romantic partner is, effectively, his or her soulmate or not and whether signs of violence or abuse appear early in the relationship or later on, when there is more emotional investment. Lippman and Ward (2014) reported that higher levels of stalking myths endorsement were associated with higher levels of unwanted pursuit perpetration and victimization among women, and with higher levels of unwanted pursuit perpetration among men. In Latin America, a study by Oxfam (2018) shows that an important proportion of young people (ages 15–19) in the countries taking part in the survey (Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic) declared to believe that jealousy is a demonstration of love, although the proportion of males holding this belief was higher (63% of men compared with 43% of women).

Researching on the persistence, or rather re-elaboration, of these romantic love myths in young people (adolescents and emerging adults) is important for at least two reasons. First is because of the key role relationships experienced during this life stage have in individuals’ emotional development and their chances of establishing satisfactory romantic partnerships later in life, as adults. It is during adolescence and early adulthood that the foundations of emotional and affective development are laid (Hertzog & Rowley, 2014; Meier & Allen, 2009; Sanhueza, 2016). To the extent that in most Latin American societies young people are delaying the establishment of long-term partnerships (marriage or cohabitation) but start dating at an earlier age, the importance of this life period as a “training ground” increases. During adolescence and early adulthood, individuals are more likely to incorporate distorted beliefs about the nature of intimate relationships, including issues like gender (in)equality and what counts as “normal” sexual conduct (Hertzog & Rowley 2014) The second reason relates to the societal changes in gender and family relationships young people are encountering, which allow women significantly higher degrees of freedom in the public sphere than in the past, but remain remarkably conventional regarding sexuality and intimate relationships (Oxfam, 2018; Risman, 2018). From this viewpoint, it is important to gather data on how young people are re-elaborating the norms that regulate “acceptable” behavior in the intimate domain.

Despite the potential role myths about romantic love might play in the formation of intimate relationships among young people, research on how to measure them from a quantitative viewpoint is rather scant. In the English-speaking context, Sprecher and Metts (1989) developed a scale (Romantic Beliefs Scale) that identifies idealization as one of the key four beliefs comprising the ideology of romanticism, as they called it, in a sample of U.S. college students. Sprecher and Metts’ scale corroborated the endorsement of four main ideals about love: Love Finds a Way (i.e., love can conquer all obstacles), One and Only (the existence of a soulmate), Idealization (there is the perfect relationship), and Love at First Sight. Furthermore, romanticism was found to be related to gender and gender-role orientation. Men were generally more romantic than women, and femininity was a stronger predictor of romanticism than was masculinity. The cultural validity these ideas still have, at least in non-Spanish speaking countries, was proven by Vannier and O’Sullivan (2016) using a sample of young people ages 18 to 28 from the United States, and by Adamczyk and Metts (2015) on a sample of Polish youth.

In the Spanish-speaking world, Bosch et al. (2007) propose a scale comprised of 10 ideals or myths distributed along two factors: idealization and a relationship between love and abuse. This scale was applied to a Spanish sample of the general population aged 15 and above. However, this scale has some important psychometric weaknesses, specifically low reliability, measured by Cronbach’s alpha (Rodríguez-Castro et al., 2013). In their own research with Spanish secondary education students, Rodríguez-Castro et al. (2013) confirm the two-factor structure of the scale elaborated by Bosch and collaborators, proposing a reduced scale of seven myths: the existence of a soulmate, the eternal passion, the love-is-blind idea, jealousy as proof of love, the omnipotence of love, and the possibility of abusing someone one loves, or loving somebody one abuses. This reduced scale has good psychometric properties and is supported by evidence of concurrent validity with other scales measuring beliefs about the nature of love and gender codes in the context of intimate relationships that could give legitimacy to violent behavior, but not abuse as such.

In this context, the main purpose of this article is to develop and validate an instrument to measure myths of romantic love in Chilean teenagers and emerging adults. As a secondary goal, we analyze differences by gender and age group.

Method

Participants

Participants were 1,538 Chilean high school (49.7%) and university (50.3%) students, aged from 14 to 24 years (M = 18.27, SD = 2.96), 59.8% were females and 40.2% males. As inclusion criteria, participants should have had a relationship of at least a month of duration during the past 12 months, not be living with their partner, and not present severe disabilities that make it impossible to complete the questionnaires.

Procedure

This study was approved by the Ethic Committee of the Universidad Autonoma de Chile. The data were collected in five secondary schools and two Chilean universities in the regions of Maule and Bío-Bío, with prior authorization from the schools. Signed consent was requested from minors to participate in the study, as well as signed informed consent from their legal guardians. In the case of adults, informed consent from themselves was requested. The administration was carried out collectively in paper format during school hours.

The initial sample consisted of 1,743 participants, of which 205 were excluded for the following reasons (alone or combined): not having the consent of their parents and/or legal guardians in the case of minors (n = 80), did not meet the inclusion criteria (n = 79), or the questionnaires were not completed in full (n = 110).

Instruments

Romantic love myths

Researchers developed 20 initial items to measure beliefs on romantic love myths in young Chilean population (14-24 years old), based on reviewed literature, as well as romantic beliefs stables in the Chilean collective imaginary, with a response scale of 5 points, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The initial items were reviewed by 10 Chilean psychologists, who independently corroborated the adequacy of the items for the Chilean context and the target population, who carried out proposals to improve the statements. Once the proposals had been unified, the adequacy of items was verified through five discussion groups, formed of five participants each (n = 25 total participants), of similar age and sex as the target population. The outcome of this process resulted in the retention of 12 of the initially proposed items.

Dating violence

The Dating Violence Questionnaire (DVQ; Rodríguez-Franco et al., 2010) is a self-administered behavioral questionnaire which assesses victimization frequency experienced in dating relationships. DVQ provide information regarding eight types of aggression. Sample items include “Your partner humiliates you in public,” “Your partner insists on touching you in ways and places which you don’t like and don’t want” and “Your partner has slapped your face, pushed, or shaken you.” The Chilean version (Lara & López-Cepero, 2018) administered in this study includes four extra items to improve the reliability of two scales (DVQ+) and reached strong reliability indexes, with ordinal alpha of .80 to .94 and MacDonald’s Omega of .81 to .94. The present study includes a second set of parallel items modified to assess the frequency the participant perpetrated those actions. DVQ+ items are rated in a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 5 (continuously), obtaining an adequate internal consistency (α = .96 for victimization and .93 for aggression).

Relationship quality

The Perceived Relationship Quality Components (PRQC, Fletcher et al., 2000) is a self-administered questionnaire that assesses six dimensions of the perceived relationship quality (satisfaction, commitment, intimacy trust, passion, and love). The short version (PRQ-S; Demir, 2008) consists of six items, one for each dimension, obtaining an alpha of .88. Sample items include “My relationship is very close and intimate” and ‘‘I feel very commitment to my relationship.” The present study included a translated version of the instrument, to be answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), obtaining and adequate internal consistency (α = .92).

Data Analysis

The analysis of the internal structure of the questionnaire was carried out using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The total sample of 1,538 participants was randomly divided into two equal parts; with the first half (n = 769), the EFAs were carried out with the objective of determining the best structure of the questionnaire, while the second half (n = 769) tested whether the data fit the model found in the EFA through the realization of CFA, as well as the stability of the structure according to gender and age. The EFAs were carried out using the software Factor version 10.8.02, on the polychoric correlation matrix with the parameter estimation method of unweighted least squares, using Horn’s parallel analysis to determine the number of factors to be retained. A minimum load of .40 was established to retain each item in the factor, a load less than .30 in alternative factors, and a difference greater than .20 between the primary and alternative factors (Howard, 2016).

The CFAs were carried out using the program Mplus 7.3, on the polychoric correlation matrix, using the robust weighted least squares estimation method (WLSMV), considered to be superior to normal theory-based maximum likelihood (ML) when ordinal observed variables are analyzed (Li, 2014). For the adequacy indexes, the cutoff points established by Arbuckle (2011) were considered, including the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA < .08), the comparative fit index (CFI. > .90) and the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI > .90).

The estimation of the internal consistency of the instrument was analyzed with two indicators. Given the ordinal nature of the data, first the Omega coefficient based on the polychoric correlation matrix, using the software Factor. Second, Cronbach’s alpha, with the program SPSS. The concurrent validity was analyzed by means of the correlations between the scores of the questionnaire with measures of dating violence and relationship quality, using the SPSS program.

Results

Factorial Structure Analysis

The EFA carried out with the first half of the sample suggested the retention of two factors. In this first analysis, two of the items (“You can mistreat someone you love” and “The intense passion at the beginning of the relationship should last forever”) presented cross-loading, so we proceeded to repeat the analysis after its elimination. Again, the EFA suggests the retention of two factors. The first factor explained 44% of the total variance and grouped all the items that related love with suffering and jealousy, thus linking love with abuse, for what was called love–abuse bonding. The second factor explained 18% of the total variance and grouped the items that idealized love, for what was named idealization of love. All the factorial loads of the items met the requirements established in the analysis plan (Table 1).

Table 1.

Factorial Solution of the Exploratory Factorial Analysis.

Nº	Item	F1	F2
1	En alguna parte hay alguien destinado para cada persona (“todos tenemos una media naranja”) [Somewhere there is someone destined for each person (“We all have a soulmate”)]	−.039	.584
2	El amor es ciego [Love is blind]	.204	.434
3	Los celos son una prueba de amor [Jealousy is a proof of love]	.661	.166
4	El amor verdadero lo puede todo [True love can do everything]	−.123	.875
5	Quien te quiere te aporrea [Who loves you hits you]	.877	−.234
6	Los que pelean se aman [Those who fight love each other]	.843	−.013
7	Quien no te cela, no te ama [If there is no jealousy, there is no love]	.772	.066
8	Al final, el amor siempre triunfa [In the end, love always triumphs]	.026	.733
9	Amar es sufrir [To love is to suffer]	.578	.103
10	El amor lo perdona todo [Love forgives everything]	.636	.166

Note. Numbers in bold represent the item’s factor pertinence.

The CFA performed with the second half of the sample confirmed that the data fit the model of two correlated factors, χ² = 254.25; gl = 34; CFI = .93; TLI = .91, RMSEA = .08, as well as for males (χ² = 176.10; gl = 34; CFI = .94; TLI = .92, RMSEA = .08) and females (χ² = 244.64; gl = 34; CFI = .93; TLI = .91, RMSEA = .08), and adolescents (χ² = 185.97; gl = 34; CFI = .93; TLI = .91, RMSEA = .08) and emerging adults (χ² = 169.63; gl = 34; CFI = .96; TLI = .94, RMSEA = .08). Figure 1 shows the details of the two correlated factors model, including the correlations between the factors and the standardized factor saturations of the items in the pertinence factors.

Figure 1.

CFA output for the Romantic Love Myths Questionnaire (RLMQ).

Reliability

The reliability was adequate for the love idealization factor (α = .73; Omega = .78) and the love–abuse factor (α = .82; Omega = .88).

Concurrent Validity of the RLMQ

Table 2 shows the correlations between RLMQ factors (idealization and love–abuse) and the criteria variables used to analyze concurrent validity (dating violence and relationship quality). Regarding dating violence, victimization did not correlate significantly with either of the two factors in the questionnaire, while aggression presented a positive correlation for the link between love and abuse (r = .093, p < .01). Regarding relationship quality, idealization correlated positively (r = .219, p < .01) while the link with love–abuse was negative (r = −.121, p < .01).

Table 2.

Correlations Between RLMQ Factors (Idealization and Love–Abuse), Dating Violence (Victimization and Aggression) and Relationship Quality.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5
1. Idealization	—	.379**	−.036	.042	.219**
2. Love–abuse		—	.032	.093**	−.121**
3. Victimization			—	.789**	−.133**
4. Aggression				—	−.052*
5. Relationship quality					—
M	3.40	1.9	1.20	1.15	4.08
SD	0.98	0.85	0.35	0.25	0.95

Note. RLMQ = Romantic Love Myths Questionnaire.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Gender and Age Differences

There were differences according to sex. Firstly in the factor linking love with abuse, mean comparisons for independent samples show that men present higher scores (M = 2.10, SD = 0.89) than women (M = 1.79, SD = 0.81), t(1536) = 7.26, p < .001. Secondly, in the idealization factor, men present lower scores (M = 3.29, SD = 1.05) than women (M = 3.46, SD = 0.93), t(1536) = −3.34, p < .001.

Differences based on the age group were also significant; mean comparisons for independent samples show how adolescents show higher scores (M = 2.08, SD = 0.88) than emerging adults (M = 1.77, SD = 0.81), t(1536) = 7.06, p < .001, both in the factor linking love with abuse and in the idealization factor (M = 3.51, DE = 1.03 vs. M = 3.30, DE = 0.94, respectively), t(1536) = 4.14, p < .001.

Discussion

The main purpose of this study was to develop and validate an instrument for measuring romantic love myths in Chilean young people. Results from analyses performed to assess the factorial structural of the questionnaire showed a coherent internal structure, that clearly identified the two main dimensions described in the literature, idealization of love and association between love and abuse (Cubells & Calsamiglia, 2015; Graham, 2011; Papp et al., 2017; Rodríguez-Castro et al., 2013), with adequate internal consistency. Furthermore, it is verified that this structure is valid regardless of gender and age group, allowing the assessment of myths of romantic love in adolescents and young adults of both sexes, clearly identifying the two dimensions described in the literature.

Regarding the association between romantic love myths and dating violence, our results show that there was not a significant correlation from the perspective of the victim; however, perpetration of dating violence did correlate positively with the love–abuse factor. These results are noteworthy because, while there are a lot of ideas in society about the link between romantic love beliefs and dating violence, there are few studies that have analyzed this relation, at least from a quantitative perspective. Our results suggest that the association between ideals and abuse is more complex, and it depends on the perspective taken (victim or aggressor) as well as the specific components of the beliefs about love. For instance, Franiuk et al. (2012) suggest that the “soulmate” belief, or the existence of an ideal partner (as opposed to the notion of good relationships as something that needs to be worked out by two willing people), can be associated with a higher acceptance of violence, but this association is mediated by the time it takes one person to decide whether a potential romantic partner is, effectively, his or her soulmate or not and whether signs of violence or abuse appear early in the relationship or later on. That is, for those individuals who are more prone to believe in the existence of a soulmate—so the matter is how to find him or her—violent behavior in the beginning of the relationship would be interpreted as a “sign” that he or she is not the ideal partner. Therefore, it could act as a protective factor. However, if the violent behavior appears later, when there is more emotional investment and it may have been decided that the current partner is indeed a soulmate, the tendency would be to interpret violence as an indicator of passion or intense feelings, minimizing it, to maintain the idealization (Franiuk et al., 2012). In a similar vein, violent individuals would justify their behavior on the grounds that romantic love is a passionate, uncontrollable force that drives them to do things they would not do otherwise (Oxfam, 2018).

In terms of the association between myths of romantic love and relationship quality, idealization was positively correlated, whereas the love–abuse was negatively correlated. In this regard, Vannier and O’Sullivan (2016) argue that there is a positive correlation between endorsing love ideals (measured using Sprecher and Metts’ scale) and the satisfaction and commitment with the relationship reported by young people, but only when individuals’ concrete expectations about real relationships are met. Although Vannier and O’Sullivan do not examine the possible links between this romantic ideology and acceptance of violence in the relationship, it is possible to hypothesize that the (assumed) passionate nature of romantic love is part of a cultural repertoire that might eventually lead to violence, although this is not per se an accepted outcome. So, when it does occur, violence helps undermine the certainty that one is in an ideal relationship, thus undermining the satisfaction with the relationship too, as Franiuk et al. (2012) suggest. From the standpoint of the (concomitant) belief that “true” love should be able to overcome all obstacles, violence could also be read as a “rough patch” (and thus a momentarily source of dissatisfaction) in a relationship that, if it turns out to be the ideal one, should eventually become nonviolent. From a different perspective, Rodríguez-Castro et al. (2013) argue that this association could be mediated by stereotyped and rigid beliefs about what is proper for each sex (sexism). In sum, the literature suggests that the effects beliefs about romantic love might have on relationships are not always direct, so the possibility of intermediary mechanisms cannot be ruled out and should be explored empirically in future research.

Regarding gender differences, we found that males link love with abuse more than females, while females tend to idealize love more than their male counterparts. Studies carried out in English-Speaking countries do not offer conclusive evidence on differences in the levels of endorsement of love beliefs reported by men and women, maybe in part due to the treatment of these ideas as a unidimensional construct. In this way, some results point out that men tend to be more “romantic” than women overall (Sprecher & Metts, 1989, 1999; Vannier & O’Sullivan, 2016). However, Rodríguez-Castro et al. (2013) point out that when considering the scores obtained by men and women on each item separately, women tend to score higher on the myths of the omnipotence and perdurability of love, whereas men tend to score higher on the issues of jealousy as evidence of love. Our data show that males score higher in the love–abuse factor, which is consistent with the findings made by Rodríguez-Castro et al. (2013). Similarly, although Borrajo et al. (2015) report a moderating effect of beliefs on love on direct on-line aggression, this was significant only for women.

These differences could be explained by the gendered nature of the social norms that govern sexuality and intimate relationships, as we have argued, which tend to recreate a heterosexual representation of what love should be that, in turn, reproduce dichotomies framed in terms of “masculine” and “feminine”—for instance, that men should be active, impulsive, and take initiative in romance, whereas women have to be seductive, but keep their sexual impulses under control (de Lemus et al., 2010; Hartwell et al., 2015). These gendered norms would also reflect the different positions men and women occupy in society, which typically afford men more power and prestige, but also commonly the role of initiating and deciding the pace of love relationships. These social positions, coupled with ideas such as the urgent and uncontrollable character of male sexuality, would give support to the notion that men can (and should) control their partners, particularly when it comes to sexual exclusivity. Conversely, the historical identification of women as the cornerstone of family life has entailed that the responsibility of keeping human relationships going smoothly from an emotional perspective is seen as a female task (Layder, 2009). Therefore, it can be expected that the importance given to feelings turns out to be more central for women.

Differences found by age indicate that scores in both dimensions comprising the scale are higher for adolescents, when compared with young adults’ ones. This result could be expected, given the—also expectable—progression toward more mature, committed relationships that might be less influenced by peers’ expectations as individuals grow up (Meier & Allen, 2009). Nonetheless, de Lemus et al. (2010) suggest that although sexist attitudes tend to diminish with age overall, some of them might in fact grow stronger as people gain further experience in intimate relationships. This would be the case for sexist attitudes or beliefs of the “benevolent” type (for instance, women need to be protected). The explanation advanced for this phenomenon argues that in the social representation of love, some stereotyped “feminine” and “masculine” behavior are portrayed as being attractive for the opposite sex. Also, they are often embodied in the beliefs that have been analyzed in this article, an example being the omnipotence of love (which implies that individuals, especially women, may have to tolerate behavior that would not accept under different circumstances, because they are expected to care more) or men’s need to be protective of a female partner, even if that means to attempt to control her decisions. In fact, authors such as Stark and Hester (2018) have argued for the need of conceptualizing what they call coercive control—understood as a imposed limitation of the scope of women’s decisions over basic daily aspects of her life by a partner—as involved in most violent intimate relationships. Coercive control is not defined as a type of violence; rather, episodes of physical and sexual violence may be used to reinforce control over a partner—usually, male control over women in heterosexual relationships. Exploring how beliefs about love lend justification to controlling practices such as jealousy or stalking disguised as “protection” opens new avenues for research.

In sum, this study presents several strengths. First, it provides a validated instrument to assess myths of romantic love in both teenagers and young adults. This allows the analysis of possible differences due to age, as opposed to the existing studies that often focus on one age group, either school students or college students, without a comparative perspective. Moreover, the instrument was valid for both for males and females, making possible comparisons based on gender. Second, the instrument clearly identifies two factors, not treating all the romantic love myths as unique. This proves to be necessary to analyze the impact of them on dating relationships. As we have shown, the beliefs in the dimension that links abuse with love are associated with the perpetration of dating violence, while the ones that idealized love are not. Also, the need to differentiate between dimensions is also reflected in the differences found when gender is considered, showing that males and females are endorsing these dimensions in different ways (males more love–abuse and females idealization). Based on this, this instrument could be served as a tool for educators and practitioners to identify romantic ideas that are supporting negative dynamics in romantic relationships.

Finally, it is necessary to comment on some limitations of our study. The first limitation derives from the difficulties implicit in attempting to distinguish between the effects of age (as an indicator of emotional maturity) from those derived from the experience gained in romantic relationships, and even from the “cohort” effect (de Lemus et al., 2010). Our study sheds light on this point, but to further disentangle these effects would require a longitudinal study capable of accompanying the evolution of the beliefs about romantic love in the transition from adolescence to young adulthood. Another limitation of our study is that sexual orientation was not covered in this study and constitutes a topic greatly underexplored regarding beliefs about romantic love. Given the differences we found based on sex in the myths about romantic love, it is relevant to consider future lines of research that might explore whether these beliefs hold sway in same-sex relationships or are read in a different light, and—if so—how. This article aims to contribute to this endeavor providing a questionnaire with good psychometric indicators that may be useful in future research.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by FONDECYT 11180663 of the National Commission for Scientific and Technological Research of Chile (CONICYT), Ministry of Education.

ORCID iD

Laura Lara

Author Biographies

Laura Lara holds a PhD in psychology from the University of Seville (Spain) and is currently a professor and researcher at the Universidad Autonoma de Chile, where she teaches in the department of developmental psychology, as well as participating in research projects relating to aspects of human development and education. She has previously taught and researched at University of Seville and conducted research at Aston University (Birmingham, UK) and Berkeley (California, USA). Her research focuses on adolescents and emerging adults.

Verónica Gómez-Urrutia holds a DPhil in gender studies by the University of Sussex (UK). She is currently a lecturer and researcher at the Universidad Autonoma de Chile, School of Social Work. Her areas of expertise include social policy on family and gender and social change regarding gendered identities. Her current research focuses on young people’s ideals on family and romantic relationships from a gender perspective.

References

Adamczyk

Metts

(2015). Romantic beliefs and Polish young adults’ relationship status. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 28(3), 7–28. https://www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-psychologie-sociale-2015-3-page-7.htm

Adams

Towns

Gavey

(1995). Dominance and entitlement: The rhetoric men use to discuss their violence towards women. Discourse & Society, 6(3), 387–406.

Arbuckle

J. L.

(2011). IBM SPSS Amos 20 user’s guide. Amos Development Corporation.

Borrajo

Gámez-Guadix

Calvete

(2015). Justification beliefs of violence, myths about love and cyber dating abuse. Psicothema, 27(4), 327–333. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2015.59

Bosch

Ferrer

García

Ramis

M. C.

Mas Tous

M. C.

Navarro

Torrens

(2007). Del mito del amor romántico a la violencia contra las mujeres en la pareja [From the myth of romantic love to violence against women in intimate partnerships]. Instituto de la Mujer, Ministerio de Igualdad de España [Women’s Institute/ Ministry for Equality of Spain].

Cubells

Calsamiglia

(2015). El repertorio del amor romántico y las condiciones de posibilidad para la violencia machista [Romantic love’s repertoire and the conditions of possibility of violence against women]. Universitas Psychologica, 14(5), 1681–1694. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.upsy14-5.rarc

de Lemus

Moya

Glick

. (2010). When contact correlates with prejudice: Adolescents’ romantic relationship experience predicts greater benevolent sexism in boys and hostile sexism in girls. Sex Roles, 63(3), 214–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9786-2

Demir

(2008). Sweetheart, you really make me happy: Romantic relationship quality and personality as predictors of happiness among emerging adults. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 257–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-007-9051-8

Fletcher

G. O. J.

Simpson

J. A.

Thomas

(2000). The measurement of perceived relationship quality components: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 340–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200265007

10.

Franiuk

Shain

E. A.

Bieritz

Murray

(2012). Relationship theories and relationship violence: Is it beneficial to believe in soulmates? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29(6), 820–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407512444374

11.

Graham

J. M.

(2011). Measuring love in romantic relationships: A meta-analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28(6), 748–771. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407510389126

12.

Hartwell

Humphries

Erchull

Liss

(2015). Loving the green-eyed monster: Development and exploration of the Jealousy Is Good Scale. Gender Issues, 32(4), 245–265.

13.

Hertzog

J. L.

Rowley

R. L.

(2014). My beliefs of my peers’ beliefs: Exploring the gendered nature of social norms in adolescent romantic relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(2), 348–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513505145

14.

Hobbs

Owen

Gerber

(2017). Liquid love? Dating apps, sex, relationships and the digital transformation of intimacy. Journal of Sociology, 53(2), 271–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783316662718

15.

Horne

Johnson

(2019). A labor of love? Emotion work in intimate relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(4), 1190–1209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407518756779

16.

Howard

M. C.

(2016). A review of exploratory factor analysis decisions and overview of current practices: What we are doing and how can we improve? International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 32(1), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2015.1087664

17.

Illouz

(2012). Why love hurts: A sociological explanation. Polity Press.

18.

Iorio

(2015). Sociology of love. Vernon Press.

19.

Langhinrichsen-Rohling

McCullars

Misra

T. A.

(2012). Motivations for men and women’s intimate partner violence perpetration: A comprehensive review. Partner Abuse, 3, 429–468. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.3.4.429

20.

Lara

López-Cepero

(2018). Psychometric properties of the Dating Violence Questionnaire: Reviewing the evidence in Chilean youths. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518760612

21.

Layder

(2009). Intimacy and power: The dynamics of personal relationships in modern society. Palgrave Macmillan.

22.

C.-H.

(2014). The performance of MLR, USLMV, and WLSMV estimation in structural regression models with ordinal variables [Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University]. https://d.lib.msu.edu/etd/3268

23.

Lippman

J. R.

(2015). “I did it because I never stopped loving you”: The effects of media portrayals of persistent pursuit on beliefs about stalking. Communication Research, 45(3), 394–421. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215570653

24.

Lippman

J. R.

Ward

L. M.

(2014). Associations between stalking myth endorsement and unwanted pursuit behaviors among college students (Aggression research program report). Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.

25.

Meier

Allen

(2009). Romantic relationships from adolescence to young adulthood: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. The Sociological Quarterly, 50(2), 308–335. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2009.01142.x

26.

Oxfam. (2018). Rompiendo moldes: transformar imaginarios y normas sociales para eliminar la violencia contra las mujeres [Breaking the mold: transforming imaginaries and social norms to eliminate violence against women]. http://209.177.156.169/libreria_cm/archivos/pdf_1679.pdf

27.

Papp

L. J.

Liss

Erchull

M. J.

Godfrey

Waaland-Kreutzer

(2017). The dark side of heterosexual romance: Endorsement of romantic beliefs relates to intimate partner violence. Sex Roles, 76(1–2), 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0668-0

28.

Risman

(2018). Where the Millenials will take us: A new generation wrestles with the gender structure. Oxford University Press.

29.

Rodríguez-Castro

Lameiras-Fernández

Carrera-Fernández

M. V.

Vallejo-Medina

(2013). La ﬁabilidad y validez de la escala de mitos hacia el amor: Las creencias de los y las adolescentes [The reliability and validity of the Myths Scale toward Love: Adolescents’ beliefs]. Revista de Psicología Social, 28, 157–168. https://doi.org/10.1174/021347413806196708

30.

Rodríguez-Franco

López-Cepero

Rodríguez-Díaz

F. J.

Bringas

Antuña

Estrada

(2010). Validación del cuestionario de violencia entre novios (CUVINO) en jóvenes hispanohablantes: análisis de resultados en España, México y Argentina [Validation of the Dating Violence Questionnaire (DVQ) among Spanish-speaking youth: Analysis of results in Spain, Mexico and Argentina]. Anuario de Psicología Clínica y de la Salud, 6, 45–52.

31.

Sanhueza

(2016). Violencia en las relaciones amorosas y violencia conyugal: Convergencias y divergencias. reflexiones para un debate [Violence in romantic relationships and conjugal violence: Convergences and divergences. Considerations for a debate]. Ultima Década, 44, 133–167. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-22362016000100006

32.

Schippers

(2018). The monogamous couple, gender hegemony and polyamory. In Messerschimdt

Martin

P. Y.

Messner

Connell

(Eds.), Gender reckonings: New social theory and research (pp. 314–330). New York University Press.

33.

Sprecher

Metts

(1989). Development of the “Romantic Beliefs Scale” and examination of the effects of gender and gender-role orientation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 387–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407589064001

34.

Sprecher

Metts

(1999). Romantic beliefs: their influence on relationships and patterns of change over time. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16(6), 834–851.

35.

Stark

Hester

(2018). Coercive control: Update and review. Violence Against Women, 25(1), 81–104.

36.

Towns

Adams

(2000). “If I really loved him enough, he would be okay”: Women’s accounts of male partner violence. Violence Against Women, 6(6), 558–585.

37.

Vannier

S. A.

O’Sullivan

L. F.

(2016). Passion, connection, and destiny: How romantic expectations help predict satisfaction and commitment in young adults’ dating relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34(2), 235–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407516631156

38.

Watts

Stenner

(2005). The subjective experience of partnership love: A Q Methodological study. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44(1), 85–107. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466604X23473

39.

Wetherell

Edley

(1999). Negotiating hegemonic masculinity: Imaginary positions and psycho-discursive practices. Feminism & Psychology, 9, 335–356.

40.

Yamada

Kito

Yuki

(2017). Passion, relational mobility, and proof of commitment: A comparative socio-ecological analysis of an adaptive emotion in a sexual market. Evolutionary Psychology, 15(4), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704917746056

41.

Yela

(2003). La otra cara del amor: Mitos, paradojas y problemas [The other face of love: Myths, paradoxes and problems]. Encuentros en Psicología Social, 1(2), 263–267.