However these 3 components suggested are rather vague. This is particular the case for “commitment” as it is difficult to judge the basis on which one person decides to love another (Hamma). Since there are no objective measurements, individuals may have their own standard to measure. This means it lacks the account for individual differences and thus is not very useful in explaining one’s love. However, although there are no clear distinctions to measure, it certainly provides a sense of direction for people to follow if they want to improve their relationships. Couples can discuss and analyse their diff views towards these components and so come up with their own distinction which allow them to pinpoint areas where change/ compromise is needed. Therefore this theory’s usefulness is limited when explaining one’s love but is greatly increased in terms of the practical application for couples.
Hazan and Shaver claimed that love should be the outcome of the early attachment style experienced during childhood. These attachments include those that are secure and insecure (i.e. avoidant or resistant). The fact that adults have different kinds of romantic relationships is because of their diff experiences in infants. For example their caregiver’s behaviours in dealing relationships would make the infant to expect the same relationship with others in the future from their internal working model (Bowlby). To clarify this claim, Hazan & Shaver conducted a love quiz, a questionnaire for identifying 620 participants’ attachment types and their love “style”. They found there is a significant correlation that the securely attached people have confident, trusting and happy love relationships; whereas anxiously attached people feel uncertain and insecure while avoidant attached people are detached and unresponsive in their love relationships. So they concluded that love is predictable from the knowledge of a person’s early attachment style.
McCarthy’s longitudinal study had supported this theory. She found women who recorded to have avoidant and resistant attachment perform poorly in relationships, whereas securely attached women did well. These detail qualitative data have suggested early attachment leads people to have diff level of performance and so diff relationships, thus support the theory.
However, Hazan & Shavers’ study is correlational, which means it cannot be claimed that early attachment and later love style is cause and effect. It is possible both are caused by something else. Kagan argued that it is the innate temperamental characteristics which determine the quality of infants-mother relationship, thus attachment style. These temperaments affect relationships throughout life and explain why there is continuity of love style. Therefore love styles could be due to inheritance rather than childhood experience, contradicting Hazan & Shavers’ view. Nevertheless, no matter whose theory is more accurate, they both suggested early attachment can have important influence on later relationships and so parents should have enough support for infants to ensure they are securely attached.
