Entraining, Becoming, and Loving

doi:10.1017/9781108658225.003

Chapter 2 - Entraining, Becoming, and Loving

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 December 2018

Krystyna S. Aune and

R. Kelly Aune

Edited by

Robert J. Sternberg and

Karin Sternberg

Show author details

Robert J. Sternberg: Affiliation:
Cornell University, New York
Karin Sternberg: Affiliation:
Cornell University, New York

Book contents

Get access

Summary

A perusal of any number of internet sites that purport to help us with our relationships will reiterate the common wisdom “Don’t expect him/her to change after marriage.” This is an aphorism that is drilled into young people’s minds to the point that it has become a truism. But is it true? Is there evidence (besides the insistent and hard-won anecdotes of a few friends) that what we see in the beginnings of our pair-bond relationships is what we will get, and continue to get long down the road?

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The New Psychology of Love , pp. 25 - 41

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108658225.003 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Acevedo, B., Aron, A., Fisher, H. E., & Brown, L. L. (2012). Neural correlates of long-term intense love. SCAN, 7, 145–159. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsq092.Google Scholar

Agnew, C. R., & Etcheverry, P. E. (2006). Cognitive interdependence: Considering self-in-relationship. In Finkel, E. & Vohs, K. (Eds.), Self and relationships: Connecting intrapersonal and interpersonal processes (pp. 274–293). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar

Agnew, C. R., Van Lange, P. A. M., Rusbult, C. E., & Langston, C. A. (1998). Cognitive interdependence: Commitment and the mental representation of close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 939–954. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.939.Google Scholar

Aron, E. N., & Aron, A. (1996). Love and expansion of the self: The state of the model. Personal Relationships, 3, 45–58. doi: 10.1111/j.1475–6811.1996.tb00103.x.Google Scholar

Aron, A, Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., Nelson, G., & Miller, N. (1991). Close relationships as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(2), 241–253. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.60.2.241.Google Scholar

Aron, A., Norman, C. C., Aron, E. N., McKenna, C., & Heyman, R. E. (2000). Couples’ shared participation in novel and arousing activities and experienced relationship quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 273–284. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.273.Google Scholar

Aron, A., Paris, M., & Aron, E. N. (1995). Falling in love: Prospective studies of self-concept change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1102–1112. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.69.6.1102.CrossRef Google Scholar

Buss, D. M. (1988). Love acts: The evolutionary biology of love. In Sternberg, R. J. & Barnes, M. L. (Eds.), The psychology of love (pp. 100–118). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

De Boer, A., Van Buel, E. M., & Ter Horst, G. J. (2012). Love is more than just a kiss: Neurobiological perspective on love and affection. Neuroscience, 201, 114–124. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2011.11.017.Google Scholar

Drigotas, S. M., Rusbult, C. E., Wieselquist, J., & Whitton, S. W. (1999). Close partner as sculptor of the ideal self: Behavioral affirmation and the Michelangelo phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(2), 293–323. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.77.2.293.Google Scholar

Duck, S. (1990a). Where do all the kisses go? Rapport, positivity, and relational-level analyses of interpersonal enmeshment. Psychological Inquiry, 1, 308–309. doi: 10.1207/s15327965pli0104_7.CrossRef Google Scholar

Duck, S. (1990b). Relationships as unfinished business: Out of the frying pan and into the 1990s. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 5–28. doi: 10.1177/0265407590071001.Google Scholar

Duck, S. (1995). Talking relationships into being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 535–552. doi: 10.1177/0265407595124006.CrossRef Google Scholar

Duck, S., Rutt, D. J., Hurst, M. H., & Strejc, H. (1991). Some evident truths about conversations in everyday relationships: All communications are not created equal. Human Communication Research, 18, 228–267. doi: 10.1111/j.1468–2958.1991.tb00545.x.Google Scholar

Fazendeiro, T., Chenier, T., & Winkielman, P. (2007). How dynamics of thinking create affective and cognitive feelings: Psychology of neuroscience of the connection between fluency, liking, and memory. In Harmon-Jones, E. & Winkielman, P. (Eds.), Social neuroscience: Integrating biological and psychological explanations of social behavior (pp. 271–289). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar

Fisher, H. E., Aron, A., & Brown, L. L. (2006). Romantic love: A mammalian brain system for Mate choice. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal B Society, 361, 2173–2186. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2006.1938.Google Scholar

Fisher, H. E., Aron, A., Mashek, D., Li, H., & Brown, L. L. (2002). Defining the brain systems of lust, romantic attraction, and attachment. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 31, 413–419. doi: 10.1023/A:1019888024255.Google Scholar

Fletcher, G., Simpson, J. A., Campbell, L., & Overall, N. C. (2013). The science of intimate relationships. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Gasiorek, J., & Aune, R. K. (2017). Text features related to message comprehension. In Oxford research encyclopedia of communication. Retrieved from http://communication.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228613-e-303.Google Scholar

Goldsmith, D. J., & Baxter, L. A. (1996). Constituting relationships in talk: A taxonomy of speech events in social and personal relationships. Human Communication Research, 23, 87–114. doi: 10.1111/j.1468–2958.1996.tb00388.x.Google Scholar

Graham, J. M., & Harf, M. R. (2014). Self-expansion and flow: The roles of challenge, skill, affect, and activation. Personal Relationships, 22, 45–64. doi: 10.1111/pere.12062.Google Scholar

Hasson, U., Ghazanfar, A. A., Galantucci, B., Garrod, S., & Keysers, C. (2012). Brain-to-brain coupling: A mechanism for creating and sharing a social world. Trends in Cognitive Science, 16(2), 114–121. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2011.12.007.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Jankowiak, W. R., & Fischer, E. F. (1992). A cross-cultural perspective on romantic love. Ethnology, 31, 149. doi: 10.2307/3773618.Google Scholar

Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Kumashiro, M., Rusbult, C. E., Wolf, S. T., & Estrada, M. J. (2006). The Michelangelo phenomenon: Partner affirmation and self-movement toward one’s ideal. In Finkel, E. & Vohs, K. (Eds.), Self and relationships: Connecting intrapersonal and interpersonal processes (pp. 317–341). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar

Kuss, D. J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2012). Internet and gaming addiction: A systematic literature review of neuroimaging studies. Brain Sciences, 2, 347–374. doi: 10.3390/brainsci2030347.Google Scholar

Mattingly, B. A., Lewandowski, G. W., & McIntyre, K. P. (2014). “You make me a better/worse person”: A two-dimensional model of relationship self-change. Personal Relationships, 21, 176–190. doi: 10.1111/pere.12025.CrossRef Google Scholar

Morelli, S. A., Torre, J. B., & Eisenberger, N. I. (2014). The neural bases of feeling understood and not understood. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9, 1890–1896. doi: 10.1093/scan/nst191.Google Scholar

Ortigue, S., & Bianchi-Demicheli, F. (2008). Why is your spouse so predictable? Connecting mirror neuron system and self-expansion model of love. Medical Hypotheses, 71, 941–944. doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2008.07.016.Google Scholar

Ortigue, S., Bianchi-Demicheli, F., Hamilton, A. F. de C., & Grafton, S. T. (2007). The neural basis of love as a subliminal prime: An event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 1218–1230. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2007.19.7.1218.CrossRef Google Scholar

Perez, A., Carreiras, M., & Duñabeitia, J. A. (2017). Brain-to-brain entrainment: EEG interbrain synchronization while speaking and listening. Scientific Reports, 7, 1–11. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-04464-4.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Pickering, M., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27(2), 169–190. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X04000056.Google Scholar

Rusbult, C. E., Finkel, E. J., & Kumashiro, M. (2009). The Michelangelo phenomenon. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 305–309. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01657.x.CrossRef Google Scholar

Rusbult, C. E., Kumashiro, M., Kubacka, K. E., & Finkel, E. J. (2009). “The part of me that you bring out”: Ideal similarity and the Michelangelo phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 61–82. doi: 10.1037/a0014016.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Rusbult, C. E., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2003). Interdependence, interaction, and relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 351–375. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145059.Google Scholar

Silbert, L. J., Honey, C. J., Simony, E., Poeppel, D., & Hasson, U. (2014). Coupled neural systems underlie the production and comprehension of naturalistic narrative speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, E4687–E4696. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1323812111.Google Scholar

Slotter, E. B., & Gardner, W. L. (2009). Where do you end and I begin? Evidence for anticipatory, motivated self-other integration between relationship partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1137–1151. doi: 10.1037/a0013882.Google Scholar

Stephens, G. J., Silbert, L. J., & Hasson, U. (2010). Speaker-listener neural coupling underlies successful communication. PNAS, 107, 14425–14430. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1008662107.Google Scholar

Stolk, A., Verhagen, L., & Toni, I. (2016). Conceptual alignment: How brains achieve mutual understanding. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20, 180–191. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2015.11.007.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Takeuchi, H., Sekiguchi, A., Taki, Y., Yokoyama, S., Yomogida, Y., Komuro, N., Yamanouchi, T., Suzuki, S., & Kawashima, R. (2010). Training of working memory impacts structural connectivity. The Journal of Neuroscience, 30, 3297–3303. doi: 10.1523/jneurosci.4611-09.2010.Google Scholar

Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Wegner, D., Erber, R., & Raymond, P. (1991). Transactive memory in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 923–929. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.61.6.923.Google Scholar

Zajonc, R., Adelmann, B., Murphy, P., & Niedenthal, K. (1987). Convergence in the physical appearance of spouses. Motivation and Emotion, 11(4), 335–346. doi: 10.1007/BF00992848.Google Scholar

Zatorre, R. J., Fields, R. D., & Johansen-Berg, H. (2012). Plasticity in gray and white: Neuroimaging changes in brain structure during learning. Nature Neuroscience, 15, 528–536. doi: 10.1038/nn.3045.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.