Vous voulez voir cette page en français ? Cliquez ici.


or
Sign in to turn on 1-Click ordering.
or
Amazon Prime Free Trial required. Sign up when you check out. Learn More
More Buying Choices
Have one to sell? Sell yours here
Tell the Publisher!
I'd like to read this book on Kindle

Don't have a Kindle? Get your Kindle here, or download a FREE Kindle Reading App.

The New Psychology of Love [Paperback]

Robert J. Sternberg , Karin Weis

List Price: CDN$ 22.48
Price: CDN$ 15.16 & FREE Shipping on orders over CDN$ 25. Details
You Save: CDN$ 7.32 (33%)
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
Only 1 left in stock (more on the way).
Ships from and sold by Amazon.ca. Gift-wrap available.
Want it delivered Tuesday, April 22? Choose One-Day Shipping at checkout.

Formats

Amazon Price New from Used from
Hardcover --  
Paperback CDN $15.16  

Book Description

July 29 2008
Love . . . What is it? Can we define it? What is its role in our lives? What causes love, and what dooms it? No single theory adequately answers all our questions about the nature of love, yet there are many theories that can contribute to our understanding of it. This fascinating book presents the full range of psychological theories on love—biological, taxonomical, implicit, cultural—updated with the latest research in the field.
Robert Sternberg and Karin Weis have here gathered more than a dozen expert contributors to address questions about defining love, the evidence for competing theories, and practical implications.  Taken together, these essays offer a comprehensive and engaging comparison of contemporary data and theories.  
As a follow up to The Psychology of Love, which was published in 1988 and edited by Robert Sternberg and Michael Barnes, this new collection engages with the many changes in the study of love in recent years.  New theories are introduced as are modifications to existing theories. Focusing not on a single point of view but on the entire range of current theories, The New Psychology of Love provides today’s definitive account of the nature of love.

Frequently Bought Together

The New Psychology of Love + Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love + Why Him? Why Her?: How to Find and Keep Lasting Love
Price For All Three: CDN$ 42.96

Some of these items ship sooner than the others. Show details

  • In Stock.
    Ships from and sold by Amazon.ca.
    FREE Shipping on orders over CDN$ CDN$ 25. Details

  • Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love CDN$ 14.08

    In Stock.
    Ships from and sold by Amazon.ca.
    FREE Shipping on orders over CDN$ CDN$ 25. Details

  • Why Him? Why Her?: How to Find and Keep Lasting Love CDN$ 13.72

    Usually ships within 3 to 5 weeks.
    Ships from and sold by Amazon.ca.
    FREE Shipping on orders over CDN$ CDN$ 25. Details


Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought


Product Details

  • Paperback: 352 pages
  • Publisher: Yale University Press; Reprint edition (July 29 2008)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 030013617X
  • ISBN-13: 978-0300136173
  • Product Dimensions: 23.5 x 16.2 x 2.3 cm
  • Shipping Weight: 522 g
  • Amazon Bestsellers Rank: #366,973 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Product Description

Review

Human beings have been contemplating romantic love since an ancient Mesopotamian scribe wrote the story of the goddess Inanna’s passionate and conflicted relationship with the shepherd Dumuzi some 4000 years ago. Also recorded was the dramatic tale of Inanna’s brother Gilgamesh, whose relationships with females were disturbingly problematic for everyone, including himself. What such ancient stories might contribute to a modern understanding of the nature love is not examined by Sternberg, Weis, and the twenty-two researchers represented in The New Psychology of Love. Instead, their research is presented as an entry into, and appropriation of, unexplored territory.
There is occasional passing reference throughout TNPOL to earlier commentators-mythic, literary, philosophical, and theological. However, there is minimal concern to integrate earlier conceptualisations of love into a new theoretical, ‘scientific’ examination of the subject-with one notable exception to be touched upon later. In her Introduction to TNPOL Karen Weis writes:

“In earlier times, psychologists had surrendered the study of love to poets, songwriters, philosophers, and the like. Only recently had the study of love begun to make its way from the status of a frivolous topic (sic) to that of a suitable topic for behavioral-scientific study.”

Weis’s vague designation “in earlier times” is confusing, and the notion that the author of the Song of Songs, St. Paul, Augustine, Shakespeare et al could be described as frivolous seems itself somewhat frivolous.
In fact Sternberg and Weis’s “new” psychology of love does not attempt to distinguish itself from the extant literature on love with which many readers might be familiar, such as St. Paul’s classic 1Corinthians 13. Instead “new” points back to Robert J. Sternberg’s first edited compilation of scientific data on the subject of love published a mere twenty years ago, in 1988. This follow-up volume “tackles the many changes in the study of love in recent years, simultaneously discussing new theories that have been proposed in the interim, as well as those modified by new relevant data.” Senior editor Sternberg, dean of Arts and Sciences at Tufts University, is an internationally renowned psychologist whose extensive CV features myriad publications on subjects such as intelligence, wisdom, creativity, as well as love. Karen Weis, the co-editor for this second iteration, is a graduate student at the University of Heidelberg who is currently doing research on the subject of hate. It is Ms. Weis who has scripted both the Introduction and Conclusion to TNPOL.
Yale University Press markets The New Psychology of Love as “today’s definitive account of the nature of love.” The editors and researchers of TNPOL are happily a little more modest. They tell us what has been achieved in twenty years of scientific research on the phenomenon of love, but they also confirm there is a long way to go before their standard scientific methodology of hypothesis, theory, and research yields an objective and definitive understanding of love. Specifically, they acknowledge that after two decades of standard due diligence they do not yet have “a consensually accepted vocabulary,” that is, an agreed upon definition of the word ‘love’.
Nonetheless, in spite of the provisional nature of their findings to date the researchers of TNPOL do conceive of themselves ‘experts’, thus distinguishing themselves from ordinary people, or lay people (persons who may experience or long to experience something that they call ‘love’ but don’t have the academic status or scientific tools to examine ‘love’ with objective scholarly rigor). In her essay “Implicit Theories of Love”, Beverly Fehr reports on her research, which focuses on the conceptions ordinary people have of love. In what seems to be an informal example of peer review, Fehr points out that some of her colleagues function under the assumption that lay people “are not equipped to describe complex concepts such as love.” She quotes Berscheid and Myers [1996] who have written that “directly asking people to describe the cultural models they use to interpret events within a particular domain is not likely to be wholly successful for the same reason that interviews with fish seldom yield mentions of water.” (Note the surprising switch from scientific language which speaks of ‘domain’ to a literary metaphor describing people as fish.) Fehr counters by defending the “hapless fish” she has studied as individuals who “seem to do quite well when directly asked to describe the qualities of the water they inhabit.”
Naturally, the authors want ordinary people to read their book. While they do present their concepts and constructs in precise scientific lab-speak, they occasionally resort to more homespun literary flourishes presumably as bait for ordinary souls who might be floundering in ‘the sea of love’. Example: In “A Dynamical Evolutionary View of Love” Douglas Kenrick hypothesizes that decision biases are innate biases of the mind designed to facilitate powerful social bonds essential to survival and reproduction and are hence highly adaptive. He then moves seamlessly from Darwinian discourse to a dance analogy in the same paragraph: “Decision biases in one individual interact in a dynamic way with those of other individuals. Each decision bias affecting loving bonds involves an ‘if-then’ contingency rule in which inputs from other people determine whether the actor picks one option or another . . . Not only does it take two to tango, but two rarely tango alone in a dark basement; instead, their carefully coordinated maneuvers are typically executed within a larger ballroom crowd who often change partners as they move in time to the same rhythms” [my emphasis].
The primary focus of most of the research presented in this book is the dyadic relationship between man and woman-romantic love. However one section, “A Biobehavioral Model of Attachment and Bonding” (Leckman, Hrdy, Keverne and Carter), includes substantive analysis of the attachment experienced between parent and child. This section also describes successful clinical strategies for strengthening the parent/child bond when it is at risk, thus completing the arc from research to application that other sections have yet to achieve. In this case, the researchers understand love as “the conscious subjective experience that arises from, and that can influence, all aspects of bonding and attachment within our species.” They adapted this conceptual construct from an18th century philosophical treatise by Stendhal-the notable exception I allude to above. Stendahl provides this epigraph for their contribution: “Every variety of love . . . is born, lives, dies, or attains immortality in accordance with the same laws.” (On Love, 1822). Perhaps this statement could or should have been used as an epigraph for the book as a whole, given the preoccupation articulated by most of the researchers, namely that their ultimate goal is to distill a ‘unified field’ theory of love from their diverse approaches to the subject: biological, cultural, taxonomic, and prototypal.
As well as developing interventions which will improve the human capacity to maximise positive outcomes in romantic attachments, some researchers also hope to refine their methodology sufficiently to be able to make predictions, like who will be attracted to whom. This made me wonder whether social scientists are interested in removing the highly desirable quality of mystery and surprise associated with romantic love. I also conjectured that such predictions might actually be impossible. It was almost a century ago that theoretical physicist Werner Heisenberg informed the scientific community that there are inherent limits to what can be predicted on the subatomic level of reality (The Uncertainty Principle, 1929). Perhaps social scientists should ask whether similar limits apply to human behaviour. At least one philosopher theologian, Bernard Lonergan, integrated Heisenberg’s conclusion into his conceptual world. This is relevant because Lonergan applies the Uncertainty Principle in a challenge to research scientists themselves: “We must be prepared for the fact that our researchers . . . may exhibit . . . a diversity of results, where the diversity does not arise from the data but rather the horizon, the mindset . . . of those conducting the investigation.” In TNPOL the researchers seem dimly aware that their research on love is influenced by the conceptual matrix from which they generate their questions and formulate their theories. That is to say, whether they are aware of it or not, they are not objective observer; they too are participants-fish swimming in the same water as their subjects.
The contributing researchers seem content with their assumption that the field of love is simply an evolving academic discipline. But if they thought of ‘field’ more metaphorically, as a medium like water (Fehr’s analogy discussed above), they might find themselves more open to existing conceptualisations, including the theological kind. Weis seems to take an unconscious conceptual leap in her concluding sentence when she speaks of love as a “force”, a notion not specifically examined in TNPOL. But ‘force’ connects naturally with the concept of ‘field’ in physics, and may even be sublated in theological constructs such as: “it is in God that we live and move and have our being.”
Gwen Nowak (Books in Canada)
-- Books in Canada --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

About the Author

Robert J. Sternberg is dean of the School of Arts and Sciences at Tufts University.  He is the author or editor of some sixty books, including Why Smart People Can Be So Stupid, published by Yale University Press. Karin Weis is a research associate at the National Preparedness Leadership Initiative of the J. F. Kennedy School of Government and School of Public Health at Harvard University.


 


Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store

If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store. Learn more

Customer Reviews

There are no customer reviews yet on Amazon.ca
5 star
4 star
3 star
2 star
1 star
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com: 4.0 out of 5 stars  6 reviews
6 of 7 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Love and the Heart and Mind July 18 2010
By Suzanne Foglesong - Published on Amazon.com
Format:Paperback
A superb compilation of well-documented research on the dynamics of love and loss. However the book may appear to be of more interest to academics, anthropologists, social scientists, and psychlogists than to the mass market. But a worthwile read for those interested in the consequences of love/rejection/abandonment/recovery.

Nonetheless, for those who are suffering from the inability to find closure at the end of rejecting relationships, it may be helpful (once you overcome the academic jargon,) to comprehend the neurological chemistry of broken relationships suggesting,via studies of the brain, that that the elongated recovery from rejection and unrequited love correlates to chemical addictions such as cocaine.

In light of this:

Look online for the paper published by Fisher,et.al (2010) Department of Psychology, State University of New York, Stony Brook "Reward Addition, and Regulation Emotional Systems Associated with Rejection in love"

Very insightful and informative.
5 of 7 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars excellent information Dec 20 2008
By D. trumper - Published on Amazon.com
Format:Paperback
deals with wide range of truly scientific aspects of love. a rare book, well worth the purchase.
5.0 out of 5 stars Great team!! Sept. 18 2013
By Gabriel J Martin - Published on Amazon.com
Format:Paperback|Verified Purchase
Full of greats works of great investigators. First order scientifics in a first order review, I highly recomend this book!!!
4.0 out of 5 stars Distinct approaches presentations March 14 2013
By W. T. HATTORI - Published on Amazon.com
Format:Paperback|Verified Purchase
It's very interesting to get to know different approaches to the same subject. They can be seen as complementary and therefore can be integrated to build more complex answers in the matter of Love. I recommend it.
0 of 2 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars School Book Feb. 26 2011
By Just gettin by - Published on Amazon.com
Format:Paperback|Verified Purchase
I was looking for this book for a class I'm taking. The course is very good and the book was very well chosen for the class.
ARRAY(0xbabf54b0)

Look for similar items by category


Feedback