Lee's six romantic love styles and partner selection

Dating Preferences

Choice in romantic partners encompasses numerous different conceptual issues in addition to factors that are likely impossible to quantify in objective terms. However, there is sufficient literature available suggesting that there are several specific interpersonal dynamics that dictate choice of potential romantic partners, casual sexual partners, and platonic friends. In particular, Lee outlined six romantic styles that describe the six different fundamental types of individuals as relates to intimate relationships (Hahn & Blass, 1997).

Meanwhile, Sprecher and Regan (2002) provide a framework for understanding human relationships and the choices that individuals make according to which of five different types of relationships is at issue. Finally, Collins and Read (1990) provide an analysis of a more general issue of human attachment that dictates aspects of the choices of partner and the types of relationship dynamics to which different individuals are naturally prone, substantially by virtue of their foundational experiences in the realm of attachment and the security or insecurity of psychological bonds during formative years, primarily within the family of origin.

Lee's Love Style Prototypes

Lee (1973, 1977 in Hahn & Blass, 1997) presents a description of six specific types of love styles typically observed in different individuals: namely, those that Lee characterizes as conforming to eros, mania, ludus, pragma, storge, and agape styles (Hahn & Blass, 1997). According to Lee, the eros style is largely dictated by a visual focus of the individual on physical attributes capable of being recognized instantaneously. Naturally, these individuals tend to have very defined physical "types" to whom they are immediately attracted on first sight. These individuals generally believe in "love at first site (Hahn & Blass, 1997 p 597), proceed immediately to sexual intimacy, and tend to be emotionally intense and open on one hand but relatively secure, non-obsessive, and not particularly prone to jealously within relationships.

By contrast, the Lee's mania style is characterized by obsession, jealousy, and a perpetual need for emotional validation and reassurance (Hahn & Blass, 1997). More specifically, whereas the eros style focuses on visual elements, the mania style is characterized more by the visual elements of a "type," the mania style is more oriented toward an affinity for love than for particular types of individuals. As a result, mania-oriented individuals may pick highly different types of individuals including those who with whom they are not necessarily compatible in other important respects beyond their mutual affinity for the exhilaration of being in "love" (Hahn & Blass, 1997).

The Ludus style described by Lee (in Hahn & Blass, 1997) is a "game-playing lover" (p. 597) who does not necessarily have a particular "type" and may enjoy dating several different people simultaneously. Their relationships tend to remain comparatively superficial, avoiding emotional intimacy and spending too much time with partners, largely to avoid establishing excessive intimacy, interdependence, and expectations. They may or may not necessarily disclose their other relationships to their partners, depending mainly on whether or not they believe that their partners will be accepting or jealous of the situation (Hahn & Blass, 1997).

Lee's pragma style is characterized by a focus on objective criteria for suitable partners that the individual maintains in general and completely irrespective of any particular candidate for love (Hahn & Blass, 1997). These individuals tend to maintain a mental "checklist" of qualities, attributes, and potential that they consider essential prerequisites of any potential partner candidate. Typically, these individuals do not necessarily have a "type" in the same sense as the eros style, but their partners do reflect a similarity wit respect to their satisfaction of criteria, such as educational level, income potential, social status and background, aspirations, and values (Hahn & Blass, 1997).

Lee's storge style is based primarily on friendship first and equally on shared likes, dislikes, and common interests (Hahn & Blass, 1997). These individuals tend to have a specific "type" preference, but unlike the eros style, the storge style focuses on the degree to which potential partners share similar lifestyles, particularly in relation to recreational pursuits and other enjoyment-oriented aspects of life. Their relationships are not necessarily particularly emotionally charged and may grow substantially out of their activities-oriented friendship rather than passion, desire for love, or emotional intimacy (Hahn & Blass, 1997). Finally, Lee describes the agape style, characterized by selflessness and sacrifice and a fundamental approach to relationships that emphasizes providing the love and benefits of the relationship that they believe everyone deserves (Hahn & Blass, 1997). They are not preoccupied with any particular "type" of potential partner and tend to be extremely supportive, patient, honest, and not jealous or highly emotionally charged (Hahn & Blass, 1997).

The Role of Attachment Theory in Intimate Human Relationships

In many respects, the final important piece of the puzzle for understanding selection and behavioral tendencies within intimate human relationships is provided by attachment theory. Specifically, the nature and quality of the maternal-infant bond, particularly in infancy and early childhood plays an extremely important role in "priming" the individual for attachment styles within subsequent relationships (Sprecher & Regan, 2002).

In principle, infants whose mothers fail to provide a sense of security and emotional stability tend to develop anxiety about their self-worth and expectations of abandonment and disappointment within their subsequent relationships (Sprecher & Regan, 2002). Naturally, since Lee's stylistic characteristics incorporate aspects of obsession, jealousy, and need for emotional intimacy and reassurance, attachment theory is helpful in differentiating stylistic tendencies in Lee's framework from pathological issues attributable to attachment issues rather than to elements of Lee's styles.

Conclusion

Taken individually, each of these three perspectives for analyzing human choices and tendencies in intimate relationships contributes a valuable piece of a very complex puzzle. However, in combination, it is likely that each provides a sufficient explanation of different major aspects of human pair bonding choices that their simultaneous application allows for a substantially comprehensive view of intimate human relationships that allows a much more clear understanding of the topic than an isolated application of any of those conceptual frameworks in isolation. Ultimately, the simultaneous application of these three views make the topic of dating preference more objectively comprehensible than may typically be imagined, even within the ranks of psychological professionals.